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.
That's a good succinct way of putting it.
Also, in the end it means more economic damage rather than less, due to absence, health care costs, and having to apply measures for longer to get back down to a level where measures can be reduced.
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?
The EU has a mechanism for fudge which is why there will probably be a deal unless Macron does a De Gaulle on fish - entirely possible.
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.
And probably the only reason we are going to get a few years relief, and the hope that something can be done to stop it, is that Biden won by far more than Trump was expecting.
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.
Putting him the dock for tax evasion, when State of Federal, would stymie much of the attack though. He'd have to be convicted of course; otherwise it would add to his aura as a victim of persecution.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
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.
Yes rule of six is fine for any outdoor activities, including drinking, imo. Opening up sports stadia for 2000 but not allowing 4 people to have a drink from a pub outside is crazy. Even more strangely the 4 could just buy the drinks from a supermarket and drink it outside.
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.
The implication that hospitality in Tier 3 might get some help, but hospitality in Tier 2 won't (even though much of the hospitality industry in Tier 2 won't be allowed to open, even if they wanted to give it ago - ie. wet pubs) is utterly disgraceful. I don't particularly understand the complaints from some areas being in Tier 3 whilst others are in Tier 2, since if anything Tier 3 seems better for many (the actual differences are minimal, but the financial support will be greater).
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.
I'd apply if the Glazers are willing to move the club to London. I gather this happens a lot in America so they ought to be OK with it.
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).
Indeed, a lot of WFH stuff was set up in a hurry in March and April, it's quite likely that many companies have left holes in their security systems as a result. There will be many systems where remote access was never envisenged, and many admin accounts that were never accessed remotely until this year.
I did read the piece you linked earlier. Zoom was a security mess a few months ago, but they've improved a lot. Still using WebEx, Facetime and Skype myself though.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Re: "reduced social mobility of single parent families" - surely single parents are in a better place now than they were pre 60s?
For those of you betting on the Georgia run-offs, there's a suggestion that the Republican vote is weakened by the conflicting message of voter fraud. In other words, the message that we need you to get out and vote is hampered by the quite widely held GOP view that the voting system is rigged.
I don't buy into this, even though I would like to. I think Jon Ossoff 'may' beat Purdue but in the other battle I think Warnock will win for the GOP.
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?
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.
Putting him the dock for tax evasion, when State of Federal, would stymie much of the attack though. He'd have to be convicted of course; otherwise it would add to his aura as a victim of persecution.
I do wonder how many indictments are currently being held back (not just of Trump but many of his cronies) to try and head off the prospect of him pardoning them all before he leaves office.
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?
The EU has a mechanism for fudge which is why there will probably be a deal unless Macron does a De Gaulle on fish - entirely possible.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
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.'
Justin, while I disagree with you, you are entitled to your views on personal morality and they do not make you "beyond the pale".
People should be allowed to disagree.
Well said Robert. They call it liberal bigotry I think
Getting confused here....it seems to be fine to criticise women for having sex when they want to, but not fine to criticise people who criticise women for having sex when they want to, but somehow fine again to criticise those who criticise people who criticise women for having sex when they want to.
Of course Justin should be entitled to his views. The rest of us are also entitled to our views on his views in return. Some of us may even judge them beyond the pale. It is all part of "free speech".
For those of you betting on the Georgia run-offs, there's a suggestion that the Republican vote is weakened by the conflicting message of voter fraud. In other words, the message that we need you to get out and vote is hampered by the quite widely held GOP view that the voting system is rigged.
I don't buy into this, even though I would like to. I think Jon Ossoff 'may' beat Purdue but in the other battle I think Warnock will win for the GOP.
How do these run-offs work? Does every voter have to choose between Warnock and Loeffler and then also between Ossoff and Perdue?
In the first round it looked like for one seat there were only 3 contenders and for the other there were around 20. Why such a difference?
One was a standard scheduled Senate election, the other was a "Special election" caused by a seat vacated mid-term (and temporarily filled). Different rules for candidate selection, i think.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Re: "reduced social mobility of single parent families" - surely single parents are in a better place now than they were pre 60s?
Yes, but it is still possible that there is now more single parent family unhappiness in aggregate cos there's so many more of them.
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.
The days of Empire are long since over.
Why should we need or even want to have "influence" on the political life of our continent?
We should seek to be friendly neighbours with our continent, though it takes two to tango, but I respect their rights to democratically make their own decisions.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
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?
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
Again, marital fidelity and conventional sexual morality (ie pre-60s), are not the same thing at all.
Were they not, Nigel? Not sure I understand your reasoning. They were both theoretical and ideals to aspire to.
The strictures of conventional sexual morality, as was, extended well beyond the idea of marital fidelity.
Indeed. Marital fidelity is important to my wife and me - I don't think our marriage would survive infidelity (perhaps if the result of long term issues that could be addressed, but not for 'no good reason', if you like).
However, neither my wife nor I were virgins when we married, nor when we met. I would have been a bit shocked if she was (we met when I was 28 and she was 25 - and I mean shocked as in surprised, not that it would have had a negative connotation). To the best of my knowledge (although we haven't discussed this!) our previous sexual encounters were all in the context of stable relationships, but I wouldn't be particularly bothered if this was not the case.
So, for us, there's a big difference between conventional sexual morality (as defined pre-1960s - where, as I understand it, I might have expected my wife to be a virgin?) and marital fidelity. The former has no importance to us, but the latter is vital to our relationship.
On the Crown and Diana (which I think is where this started?) my wife in particular thought that Diana was portrayed as very calculating early on, determined to win the prince's hand. I didn't think it was an entirely positive portrayal.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
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 the information seems to be pointing to the original Tier assessments erring far too far on the light side. I suppose, logically, if they hadn't got those wrong, we'd never have had to go into "Tier 4" soft lockdown, anyway. At least they may have learned from that - going too soft early simply means incurring more restrictions later and for longer.
I do know they were resistant to putting areas into Tier 2 beforehand - despite Local Authority leaders from all parties in Oxfordshire presenting the strong case that it would be necessary, they vetoed it.
A couple of weeks later, they put us all into lockdown, and then into Tier 2 on exit. We do have to wonder if they'd just bloody well done Tier 2 here in the first place (and other places that needed it), could we have avoided the lockdown altogether?
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Re: "reduced social mobility of single parent families" - surely single parents are in a better place now than they were pre 60s?
Yes, but there are very many more of them.
There is a social class element to it as well. Social mobility is particularly poor in those single parents who never married, those with few educational qualifications and young age at first pregnancy*. Middle class single parents don't do quite as badly as they have other supports to fall back on.
* Angela Rayner is particularly impressive at overcoming these obstacles.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Yes I remember people like BigG and others banging on criticising the BBC for using the 70% figure.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Absolutely not true. There is no legitimate sense in which "the overall study" said that, and when the 90% claim was made there was deliberate suppression of the dosing error and the 55 and under demographic. You can't just say things, they actually have to conform to the undisputed facts.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
Mr Eagles, I'm one of those that criticised the BBC over that.
It was a legitimate complaint. If further research is needed to confirm the finding, as it was unexpected and wasn't the focus of the initial trial(s) then fair enough to include that as a caveat.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
I spoke to someone a couple of days ago who was saying how unreasonable the foreigners were being in not wanting to give us "our fish" back. I think it really hadn't occurred to her that we only wanted all those fish so that we could sell a large proportion of them to those same foreigners, or that we were also demanding open access to their markets to do so.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
Yes - Astra Zeneca have clearly got themselves to partly blame, but there is massive US vested interest in seeing this vaccine discredited. Because of the price and commitment not to make a profit from it.
If you watch the US networks (even CNN) you’ll notice that none of them are mentioning the price aspect.
Again, marital fidelity and conventional sexual morality (ie pre-60s), are not the same thing at all.
Were they not, Nigel? Not sure I understand your reasoning. They were both theoretical and ideals to aspire to.
The strictures of conventional sexual morality, as was, extended well beyond the idea of marital fidelity.
Indeed. Marital fidelity is important to my wife and me - I don't think our marriage would survive infidelity (perhaps if the result of long term issues that could be addressed, but not for 'no good reason', if you like).
However, neither my wife nor I were virgins when we married, nor when we met. I would have been a bit shocked if she was (we met when I was 28 and she was 25 - and I mean shocked as in surprised, not that it would have had a negative connotation). To the best of my knowledge (although we haven't discussed this!) our previous sexual encounters were all in the context of stable relationships, but I wouldn't be particularly bothered if this was not the case.
So, for us, there's a big difference between conventional sexual morality (as defined pre-1960s - where, as I understand it, I might have expected my wife to be a virgin?) and marital fidelity. The former has no importance to us, but the latter is vital to our relationship.
On the Crown and Diana (which I think is where this started?) my wife in particular thought that Diana was portrayed as very calculating early on, determined to win the prince's hand. I didn't think it was an entirely positive portrayal.
Yes similarly, I have not been sexually unfaithful to Mrs Foxy since we married in our twenties. I have no idea how many sexual partners she has had. I have never asked, and neither has she with me.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
People make the choices which they think they are free to make, so there is no distinction there. It's like that "guns don't kill people" nonsense.
Have a look at this graph. I know that "outside marriage" does not imply spf, but there's a pretty major correlation.
Just listening to Arsene Wenger on Desert Island Discs. Jaques Brel....Elvis...Sinatra.....Meets Elton for lunch in his favourite restaurant in Nice.....
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
The under 55s may be in the 90% but the 70% altogether was a properly weighted sample.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
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.
Yes rule of six is fine for any outdoor activities, including drinking, imo. Opening up sports stadia for 2000 but not allowing 4 people to have a drink from a pub outside is crazy. Even more strangely the 4 could just buy the drinks from a supermarket and drink it outside.
I agree the discussions should focus on the details of the restrictions rather than the principle, to do the stuff that has the best benefit vs cost ratio.
Re pubs and outside drinking, I guess the worry is hundreds of "groups of six" congregating in the high streets and forgetting about distancing. How do you prevent that?
Mr Eagles, I'm one of those that criticised the BBC over that.
It was a legitimate complaint. If further research is needed to confirm the finding, as it was unexpected and wasn't the focus of the initial trial(s) then fair enough to include that as a caveat.
This is from the AZ press release, 70% was the correct figure to report.
Positive high-level results from an interim analysis of clinical trials of AZD1222 in the UK and Brazil showed the vaccine was highly effective in preventing COVID-19, the primary endpoint, and no hospitalisations or severe cases of the disease were reported in participants receiving the vaccine. There were a total of 131 COVID-19 cases in the interim analysis.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
I have never claimed that they were. Similarly I suspect that many of our ethnic communities have a lot of unhappiness within outwardly stable looking family structures.
I do think though that it substantially accounts for the stronger educational performance of some of these communities compared with the white working class. I think this particularly so for boys, who lack good role models.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
No. That’s not what happened. You are unjustifiably implying dishonesty. The data was indeed reported badly, with a result that three sets of figures, 62% and 90%, giving an average of 70%, were simultaneously reported. That was poor - as indeed appears to have been the testing. But not as bad, as you imply, putting out 90% and then sheepishly following up with 62%. They are now basically saying “yes, we hear your concerns, let’s run some further tests”.
They screwed up the press release which is what comes from doing it that way. AstraZeneca stressed that the data was preliminary, rather than final - which is true for the reported Pfizer and Moderna results as well. If people are not going to take a vaccine it won’t be on a brand by brand basis.
It’s a bit pathetic the two of us having a varsity row over something so important - but I do think it’s important, while accepting that mistakes are made when you’re trying to run science by press release, not to throw the baby out with the bath water to get a series of jabs (excuse the pun) in.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I love the way a discussion about changes in sexual mores and their possible consequences focuses on whether women should have sex and not at all on men’s responsibilities for the consequences of their actions.
Really? I mean the man is a total prat but jeez, surely the photographer has something better to do with his time and money.
Judging by the abuse Kevin Hague and others get from the Nats for quoting the SNP's own words at them, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of a Cybernat pile on.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
The under 55s may be in the 90% but the 70% altogether was a properly weighted sample.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
Normally you don’t do this kind of thing because it looks suspiciously like P-hacking, but surely they could look at the demographics of the 62% sample to see whether in was more effective in the younger portion than the old & thereby rule in or out that explanation for the sample that received the smaller dosing regimen?
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
Just listening to Arsene Wenger on Desert Island Discs. Jaques Brel....Elvis...Sinatra.....Meets Elton for lunch in his favourite restaurant in Nice.....
.....How much he must miss those trips to Stoke-on Trent in December
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.
Yes rule of six is fine for any outdoor activities, including drinking, imo. Opening up sports stadia for 2000 but not allowing 4 people to have a drink from a pub outside is crazy. Even more strangely the 4 could just buy the drinks from a supermarket and drink it outside.
I agree the discussions should focus on the details of the restrictions rather than the principle, to do the stuff that has the best benefit vs cost ratio.
Re pubs and outside drinking, I guess the worry is hundreds of "groups of six" congregating in the high streets and forgetting about distancing. How do you prevent that?
In most countries the individual bars and restaurants allowing or causing that problem would get warned and then closed if they didnt somehow adjust it. In the UK we seem to have hollowed out our local authorities, policing and courts so that we close every bar and restaurant in the region instead. Its a false economy scrimping on essential services to society.
Interesting how elephants in the room get ignored on here when it does not suit the prevailing narrative.
Johnson is in massive trouble today if the news reports are correct. Last night's presser with Whitty and Vallance was a complete catastrophe, whatever the SAGE acolytes on here will tell you. Open revolt in the parliamentary party now.
I think it is his own chancellor, however, who is really doing for Johnson though. His frank assessment of the economic carnage being caused by Johnson's policies really brought it home to tory MPs.
They realised after Sunak spoke that it is over. All they have to offer their constituents in the next five years is.....now how did I put it....???
A vast tundra of authoritarianism and taxes.
Yes that was it I think. Or something like that.
I fear that after Whitty and Vallance spoke I may have been a bit optimistic there.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
People make the choices which they think they are free to make, so there is no distinction there. It's like that "guns don't kill people" nonsense.
Have a look at this graph. I know that "outside marriage" does not imply spf, but there's a pretty major correlation.
Sorry but no people have always made choices. Personal responsibility matters.
I don't see any graph there.
If you want a graph then here is one:
Single parent families are highest in countries that have the worst sexual education thanks to people preaching about "family values". The US has more single parent families than European nations.
23% of American children live in Single Parent families versus 12% in Germany.
Really? I mean the man is a total prat but jeez, surely the photographer has something better to do with his time and money.
Judging by the abuse Kevin Hague and others get from the Nats for quoting the SNP's own words at them, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of a Cybernat pile on.
Oh they can be deeply unpleasant and vicious, no question but that's not really what happened here.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Re: "reduced social mobility of single parent families" - surely single parents are in a better place now than they were pre 60s?
Yes, but there are very many more of them.
There is a social class element to it as well. Social mobility is particularly poor in those single parents who never married, those with few educational qualifications and young age at first pregnancy*. Middle class single parents don't do quite as badly as they have other supports to fall back on.
* Angela Rayner is particularly impressive at overcoming these obstacles.
More results of single parent families....
Due to the move (deliberately encouraged by governments) to get women into the workforce and return to work after having children, more single mothers have a job. Which is useful for feeding the children. Yay!
The flip side is that the housing market has adjusted to dual incomes being practically standard. Prices to match.... So single parent families are at a massive disadvantage. Boo!
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.
Yes rule of six is fine for any outdoor activities, including drinking, imo. Opening up sports stadia for 2000 but not allowing 4 people to have a drink from a pub outside is crazy. Even more strangely the 4 could just buy the drinks from a supermarket and drink it outside.
I agree the discussions should focus on the details of the restrictions rather than the principle, to do the stuff that has the best benefit vs cost ratio.
Re pubs and outside drinking, I guess the worry is hundreds of "groups of six" congregating in the high streets and forgetting about distancing. How do you prevent that?
Send in the police with dogs and batons it will bring such behavior to a halt pretty quickly. Give them five minutes to head home if not encourage them.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
The under 55s may be in the 90% but the 70% altogether was a properly weighted sample.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
No, the 70% figure is meaningless. Change the relative numbers in each dosing regime and you get a different result because if the relative weighting. An accurate way of reporting would be to say the the vaccine was a minimum of 62% effective but could be as high as 90% (subject to further testing).
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
People make the choices which they think they are free to make, so there is no distinction there. It's like that "guns don't kill people" nonsense.
Have a look at this graph. I know that "outside marriage" does not imply spf, but there's a pretty major correlation.
Sorry but no people have always made choices. Personal responsibility matters.
I don't see any graph there.
If you want a graph then here is one:
Single parent families are highest in countries that have the worst sexual education thanks to people preaching about "family values". The US has more single parent families than European nations.
23% of American children live in Single Parent families versus 12% in Germany.
As my mother died when I was small, I grew up in a single parent family. I’m not sure what sex-education had to do with 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.
All the information seems to be pointing to the original Tier assessments erring far too far on the light side. I suppose, logically, if they hadn't got those wrong, we'd never have had to go into "Tier 4" soft lockdown, anyway. At least they may have learned from that - going too soft early simply means incurring more restrictions later and for longer.
I do know they were resistant to putting areas into Tier 2 beforehand - despite Local Authority leaders from all parties in Oxfordshire presenting the strong case that it would be necessary, they vetoed it.
A couple of weeks later, they put us all into lockdown, and then into Tier 2 on exit. We do have to wonder if they'd just bloody well done Tier 2 here in the first place (and other places that needed it), could we have avoided the lockdown altogether?
Re the last question, yes. As long as the tiering is adjusted as necessary on an ongoing basis, which shouldn't be that difficult.
Review trends in case numbers every week or two, keeping in mind that any changes take about 10 days to filter through into case numbers. If they go up and you're not still on really low numbers (<50/week/100,000?), increase the tier. If you're level on unsustainable numbers (>300?), also increase the tier. If cases fall below an "acceptable" threshold (100?), and you think they'll stay level at a lower tier, drop down. And, most importantly, explain it all properly.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
The under 55s may be in the 90% but the 70% altogether was a properly weighted sample.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
No, the 70% figure is meaningless. Change the relative numbers in each dosing regime and you get a different result because if the relative weighting. An accurate way of reporting would be to say the the vaccine was a minimum of 62% effective but could be as high as 90% (subject to further testing).
No that's not the case. The 70% was properly weighted. You can criticise the 90% for not being properly weighted but the 70% was.
The only reason to use the 62% is if we were going to start using full/full and so had to discount part of the study that included 90%.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
The under 55s may be in the 90% but the 70% altogether was a properly weighted sample.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
No, the 70% figure is meaningless. Change the relative numbers in each dosing regime and you get a different result because if the relative weighting. An accurate way of reporting would be to say the the vaccine was a minimum of 62% effective but could be as high as 90% (subject to further testing).
With a scientifically literate press and, a decent press release, that's how it should have been reported. Despite TSE's wierd partisan bias about such weighty issues there was no outright dishonesty in the published preliminary results but the way they were presented was woeful and bound to be misinterpreted. The way the Pfizer and Moderna preliminary results were pubished was much easier to follow.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
What?
It isn't true about the storks.
Sexual freedom doesn't cause single parent families, choices people have made do.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
People make the choices which they think they are free to make, so there is no distinction there. It's like that "guns don't kill people" nonsense.
Have a look at this graph. I know that "outside marriage" does not imply spf, but there's a pretty major correlation.
Sorry but no people have always made choices. Personal responsibility matters.
I don't see any graph there.
If you want a graph then here is one:
Single parent families are highest in countries that have the worst sexual education thanks to people preaching about "family values". The US has more single parent families than European nations.
23% of American children live in Single Parent families versus 12% in Germany.
As my mother died when I was small, I grew up in a single parent family. I’m not sure what sex-education had to do with it.
Yes indeed that has always been a factor which is another reason why it is mad to criticise single parent families; but I don't believe 23% of American children are twice as likely to have a dead parent than German children as an explanation for the relative difference.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
1 is essentially true. Most popular nations for Britons emigrate to already include nations that require visas anyway.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
While I'm in favour of free movement and have always been a remainer, it always seems tin eared when the FBPE Twitter lot bang on about free movement so loudly. It makes it seem like the borders are about to be shut on us forever.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
I think it's a psychological feeling of opportunities being closed off and boundaries erected. Personally, it was never likely that I would move to an EU country for work, or to retire (although my grandparents, hardworking Tory voters of reasonable means, retired to Spain). But I liked the idea that I could. My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on. For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
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.'
Justin, while I disagree with you, you are entitled to your views on personal morality and they do not make you "beyond the pale".
People should be allowed to disagree.
Well said Robert. They call it liberal bigotry I think
Getting confused here....it seems to be fine to criticise women for having sex when they want to, but not fine to criticise people who criticise women for having sex when they want to, but somehow fine again to criticise those who criticise people who criticise women for having sex when they want to.
Of course Justin should be entitled to his views. The rest of us are also entitled to our views on his views in return. Some of us may even judge them beyond the pale. It is all part of "free speech".
The recurring need to portray criticism as censorship is wearying. I'm no doubt displaying my liberal bigotry but my sense on here it's largely a reflex of the right, e.g. hundreds, nay thousands, of posts from pro Trump guys being pro Trumpy who then moan about their views being suppressed because they don't get big cuddles from everyone else.
Perhaps pb.com should have a 'not for snowflakes' strapline.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
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?
The EU has a mechanism for fudge which is why there will probably be a deal unless Macron does a De Gaulle on fish - entirely possible.
I was referring to the hungary thing not brexit
The EU will fudge Hungary and Poland - signs there already.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Saying you could and saying that people did are two entirely different concepts.
Objectively moving abroad to work was not something many Britons did - and it is something they will still be able to do too.
Freedom of movement enabled far more unskilled migration than it did skilled migration, skilled workers can more easily navigate a visa system whereas being able to get a bus/plane and then migrate for a cash in hand job is easier with freedom of movement.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
Never mind only 10 years to wait and you'll be 14.
Interesting how elephants in the room get ignored on here when it does not suit the prevailing narrative.
Johnson is in massive trouble today if the news reports are correct. Last night's presser with Whitty and Vallance was a complete catastrophe, whatever the SAGE acolytes on here will tell you. Open revolt in the parliamentary party now.
I think it is his own chancellor, however, who is really doing for Johnson though. His frank assessment of the economic carnage being caused by Johnson's policies really brought it home to tory MPs.
They realised after Sunak spoke that it is over. All they have to offer their constituents in the next five years is.....now how did I put it....???
A vast tundra of authoritarianism and taxes.
Yes that was it I think. Or something like that.
I fear that after Whitty and Vallance spoke I may have been a bit optimistic there.
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?
The EU has a mechanism for fudge which is why there will probably be a deal unless Macron does a De Gaulle on fish - entirely possible.
I was referring to the hungary thing not brexit
The EU will fudge Hungary and Poland - signs there already.
Fudge is what the EU does, it is what they have always done.
Hungary and Poland would be mental to give up their veto though based on fudge or "understandings".
Mr. Boy, the psychological aspect is interesting. It's somewhat akin to identity, and the Remain side, not only in the campaign but for years, utterly failed on that front.
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
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 the information seems to be pointing to the original Tier assessments erring far too far on the light side. I suppose, logically, if they hadn't got those wrong, we'd never have had to go into "Tier 4" soft lockdown, anyway. At least they may have learned from that - going too soft early simply means incurring more restrictions later and for longer.
I do know they were resistant to putting areas into Tier 2 beforehand - despite Local Authority leaders from all parties in Oxfordshire presenting the strong case that it would be necessary, they vetoed it.
A couple of weeks later, they put us all into lockdown, and then into Tier 2 on exit. We do have to wonder if they'd just bloody well done Tier 2 here in the first place (and other places that needed it), could we have avoided the lockdown altogether?
Being wise after the event? I'm not by any means defending this Government, and they do seem to have made some very poor decisions..... the management of test and trace for one ...... but they were faced with a situation which have taxed first rate minds. Which of course rules out Boris and his lot.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
They didn't bang on about it being 90%. They said it was 70% (which is what the overally study said) but might be 90%.
If the media span it differently then ...
Not quite. They said it was “on average” 70% effective, which sounded like a very strange way of putting it. Which turned out to be a weighted average of 62% for the standard dosage regime and 90% for the accidentally discovered regime. Which makes the 70% figure utterly meaningless since it is entirely dependent on the relative numbers of test subjects receiving the two regimes (if those numbers can be trusted - which apparently they possibly can’t - all the 90% results were in under 55s)
The under 55s may be in the 90% but the 70% altogether was a properly weighted sample.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
The third possibility is that the 90% is a statistical fluke due to the low numbers involved. It could also be a combination of all three effects, i.e. half-full genuinely is a little bit better, but also benefitted from the skewed sampling and plain luck.
If I was between 14 and 18 I would never forgive my parents generation for taking away the opportunity for me to live and work in any of 28 diverse and fascinating countries as easily as I can work in the UK for no reason other than not wanting them to be able to do the same over here.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
That was the conversation I had pre-2016 with my EU-hating in laws.
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
For most, given our woeful language skills, it was a theoretical freedom rather than a real one. The EU was also pretty bad at making a level playing field for professionals. I’m a fully qualified teacher here: which EU country would recognise my qualification and let me apply for a teaching post? What about lawyers or accountants (I genuinely don’t know about those: could they have moved seamlessly from one country to another)?
In IT, freedom of movement was real: I could have gone and worked pretty much anywhere in Europe & have friends that did exactly that. Brexit forced them to become citizens of their place of work in order to keep their livelihoods & I doubt they’ll be coming back.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
Some of the best years of my life (including learning German and marrying a German girl) were spent working as a software developer in Germany. I suppose it'll still be possible to do this in the future, but it will involve a lot more bureaucracy.
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.
I do not want to go back to the sexual morality and mores of the 1950s, just pointing out that our enhanced sexual freedom has had a significant downside in terms of family breakdown, with consequent adverse effects on society. Notable amongst these is the reduced social mobility of single parent families.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
Enhanced sexual freedom isn't the cause of single parent families.
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Yes, yes, Oxford is bad, we know, you’ve made the point a number of times. Do people demand a specific brand of flu jab or do they just take what they’re given?
Well they bang on it being 90% effective then admit it is more like 62% then this is the sort of stuff that helps antivaxxers spread their bullshit.
Surely there are two issues. Will it cause harm and is it effective? If there is any doubt about the former, then it won't get the go-ahead - I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Whether or not it's effective and worth rolling out is another matter.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
It's not anti Oxford, it really isn't now.
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
But the whole anti-vaxxer thing is around side effects, not effectiveness. I've not heard any of them claim that the MMR doesn't prevent those three diseases.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
But that's what they do, they chip at one part of the story to cast doubt on the whole project.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
It's precisely what you're doing.
I'm not, I'm really not, I'm mapping out how things could pan out.
I mean I might predict Man City will win the PL but doesn't mean I want it to happen.
Comments
Also, in the end it means more economic damage rather than less, due to absence, health care costs, and having to apply measures for longer to get back down to a level where measures can be reduced.
That really does encapsulate Trump.
Its like globalisation, neither all upside, nor all downside.
I did read the piece you linked earlier. Zoom was a security mess a few months ago, but they've improved a lot. Still using WebEx, Facetime and Skype myself though.
In the first round it looked like for one seat there were only 3 contenders and for the other there were around 20. Why such a difference?
Astrazeneca will carry out additional trials of the Covid vaccine it has developed with Oxford University to shore up confidence over its effectiveness, the drugmaker’s chief executive said yesterday.
The Oxford team, whose own trials suggest that the vaccine could be 90 per cent effective, said that the extra testing was not expected to slow an application for regulatory approval in Britain, which ministers believe could come before the end of the year.
However, Pascal Soriat, Astrazeneca’s chief executive, suggested that data submitted to the UK regulator from trials in the UK and Brazil was unlikely to be sufficient to win regulatory clearance in the United States.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/astrazeneca-defends-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-as-disquiet-mounts-over-the-results-mf6t57rnr
I'm expecting Brits to reject the AZ/Oxford jab and demand the Pfizer or Moderna jabs.
Of course Justin should be entitled to his views. The rest of us are also entitled to our views on his views in return. Some of us may even judge them beyond the pale. It is all part of "free speech".
Why should we need or even want to have "influence" on the political life of our continent?
We should seek to be friendly neighbours with our continent, though it takes two to tango, but I respect their rights to democratically make their own decisions.
It's without merit. It's stark raving bonkers.
Perhaps they'll spend some of their earnings on a Hamilton type trademark action against the wannabes in the fens.
However, neither my wife nor I were virgins when we married, nor when we met. I would have been a bit shocked if she was (we met when I was 28 and she was 25 - and I mean shocked as in surprised, not that it would have had a negative connotation). To the best of my knowledge (although we haven't discussed this!) our previous sexual encounters were all in the context of stable relationships, but I wouldn't be particularly bothered if this was not the case.
So, for us, there's a big difference between conventional sexual morality (as defined pre-1960s - where, as I understand it, I might have expected my wife to be a virgin?) and marital fidelity. The former has no importance to us, but the latter is vital to our relationship.
On the Crown and Diana (which I think is where this started?) my wife in particular thought that Diana was portrayed as very calculating early on, determined to win the prince's hand. I didn't think it was an entirely positive portrayal.
I suppose, logically, if they hadn't got those wrong, we'd never have had to go into "Tier 4" soft lockdown, anyway. At least they may have learned from that - going too soft early simply means incurring more restrictions later and for longer.
I do know they were resistant to putting areas into Tier 2 beforehand - despite Local Authority leaders from all parties in Oxfordshire presenting the strong case that it would be necessary, they vetoed it.
A couple of weeks later, they put us all into lockdown, and then into Tier 2 on exit. We do have to wonder if they'd just bloody well done Tier 2 here in the first place (and other places that needed it), could we have avoided the lockdown altogether?
*Albeit a very bad one.
It isn't true about the storks.
If the media span it differently then ...
It genuinely - I mean genuinely - hadn`t occurred to them that restricting free movement unto the UK would mean that our free movement would be similarly restricted. Their attitudes had two clear strands 1) "why wouldn`t everyone welcome us Brits because we are awesome?" and 2) "I don`t care because I don`t want to visit the EU anyway".
I suppose that is what is meant by British exceptionalism.
I know you like to be anti-Oxford, but you really ought to be careful on this subject. The Americans are clearly muck spreading at the moment - you shouldn't help them.
There is a social class element to it as well. Social mobility is particularly poor in those single parents who never married, those with few educational qualifications and young age at first pregnancy*. Middle class single parents don't do quite as badly as they have other supports to fall back on.
* Angela Rayner is particularly impressive at overcoming these obstacles.
Single parent families could also happen before the 1960s too. Just because people were ashamed and didn't speak about it as much doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The idea the past was all happy, stable, "traditional" nuclear families is a lie.
It was a legitimate complaint. If further research is needed to confirm the finding, as it was unexpected and wasn't the focus of the initial trial(s) then fair enough to include that as a caveat.
2 is irrelevant. Nobody requires a visa for visiting from Britons nor will they post Brexit. We won't require a visa for Europeans to visit either.
https://twitter.com/grahamggrant/status/1331516141731254272?s=21
I absolutely despise antivaxxers and one of my perverse pleasures is checking out the thinking of current antivaxxers, and this is the sort of thing they live for.
There's much potential for fake news with the vaccine rollout, the government needs to really educate the public on this, right now the antivaxxers are filling the vacuum. We saw this with the MMR jab and so many needlessly died.
Social media gives every idiot a megaphone, and it has tragic consequences, see what happened in Samoa.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/07/samoa-measles-crisis-100-new-cases-as-anti-vaccination-activist-charged
If you watch the US networks (even CNN) you’ll notice that none of them are mentioning the price aspect.
Have a look at this graph. I know that "outside marriage" does not imply spf, but there's a pretty major correlation.
So two possibilities exist. Either the vaccine is more effective at half/full ratios (in which case 70% is likely the floor to effectiveness) or the vaccine is more effective with the young than the old, causing the 62/90 ratio due to sampling.
Re pubs and outside drinking, I guess the worry is hundreds of "groups of six" congregating in the high streets and forgetting about distancing. How do you prevent that?
I mean the man is a total prat but jeez, surely the photographer has something better to do with his time and money.
Since you don't like them and you are A Guardian Of Morality, they aren't... well fully people.
So you aren't NoPlatforming *people* - the ones with rights an stuff. Just UnPersons.
So this is completely justifiable, morally and socially.
Positive high-level results from an interim analysis of clinical trials of AZD1222 in the UK and Brazil showed the vaccine was highly effective in preventing COVID-19, the primary endpoint, and no hospitalisations or severe cases of the disease were reported in participants receiving the vaccine. There were a total of 131 COVID-19 cases in the interim analysis.
One dosing regimen (n=2,741) showed vaccine efficacy of 90% when AZD1222 was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart, and another dosing regimen (n=8,895) showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens (n=11,636) resulted in an average efficacy of 70%.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/azd1222hlr.html
I do think though that it substantially accounts for the stronger educational performance of some of these communities compared with the white working class. I think this particularly so for boys, who lack good role models.
They screwed up the press release which is what comes from doing it that way. AstraZeneca stressed that the data was preliminary, rather than final - which is true for the reported Pfizer and Moderna results as well. If people are not going to take a vaccine it won’t be on a brand by brand basis.
It’s a bit pathetic the two of us having a varsity row over something so important - but I do think it’s important, while accepting that mistakes are made when you’re trying to run science by press release, not to throw the baby out with the bath water to get a series of jabs (excuse the pun) in.
I agree that there's definitely going to be some added hurdles for the minority that go to study/work/live in Europe and maybe some teething problems. However, considering many Brits go to study/work/live in non-EU countries every year without incident, I just can't really see why this is such an issue for remainerland considering the small number of people this affects.
Some things never change it seems.
Trying to conflate the arguments over the Oxford/AZ vaccine's effectiveness with anti-vaxxer nonsense is not helpful.
You only have search Twitter for comments on AZ's recent share price movements to see that.
Johnson is in massive trouble today if the news reports are correct. Last night's presser with Whitty and Vallance was a complete catastrophe, whatever the SAGE acolytes on here will tell you. Open revolt in the parliamentary party now.
I think it is his own chancellor, however, who is really doing for Johnson though. His frank assessment of the economic carnage being caused by Johnson's policies really brought it home to tory MPs.
They realised after Sunak spoke that it is over. All they have to offer their constituents in the next five years is.....now how did I put it....???
A vast tundra of authoritarianism and taxes.
Yes that was it I think. Or something like that.
I fear that after Whitty and Vallance spoke I may have been a bit optimistic there.
I don't see any graph there.
If you want a graph then here is one:
Single parent families are highest in countries that have the worst sexual education thanks to people preaching about "family values". The US has more single parent families than European nations.
23% of American children live in Single Parent families versus 12% in Germany.
Due to the move (deliberately encouraged by governments) to get women into the workforce and return to work after having children, more single mothers have a job. Which is useful for feeding the children. Yay!
The flip side is that the housing market has adjusted to dual incomes being practically standard. Prices to match.... So single parent families are at a massive disadvantage. Boo!
Review trends in case numbers every week or two, keeping in mind that any changes take about 10 days to filter through into case numbers. If they go up and you're not still on really low numbers (<50/week/100,000?), increase the tier. If you're level on unsustainable numbers (>300?), also increase the tier. If cases fall below an "acceptable" threshold (100?), and you think they'll stay level at a lower tier, drop down. And, most importantly, explain it all properly.
The only reason to use the 62% is if we were going to start using full/full and so had to discount part of the study that included 90%.
Law, it seems to me, has a strong local element - you can’t reasonably expect to practise law in a given country without actually being familiar with the laws of that country, surely?
My kids are all learning German, it makes me very angry that it will be much harder for them to move there to work or study, although of course it will still be possible with enough extra paperwork/money. I have friends who have a place in Greece, they used to come and go as they pleased, spend months there at a time without a thought. I don't think that will be possible now, without extra paperwork. My brother's partner is French, they met at Uni in Scotland, she got a job there and has lived there most of her adult life. That may not have been possible under the forthcoming rules. I have two schoolfriends married to Spaniards. Those relationships may well have been impossible without freedom of movement. I could go on.
For many people I know, freedom of movement meant something tangible, it opened up opportunities for them, enabled them to live the life they wanted to. Freedom. It's a beautiful word. Its removal is a tragedy for many people.
Perhaps pb.com should have a 'not for snowflakes' strapline.
Objectively moving abroad to work was not something many Britons did - and it is something they will still be able to do too.
Freedom of movement enabled far more unskilled migration than it did skilled migration, skilled workers can more easily navigate a visa system whereas being able to get a bus/plane and then migrate for a cash in hand job is easier with freedom of movement.
Hungary and Poland would be mental to give up their veto though based on fudge or "understandings".
The focus on fear of the alternative coupled with denigrating the people (not the ideas) of the other side turned what should've been a win at a canter into a shock defeat.
Looking forward, those keen on the EU would be advised to stop treating sceptics with contempt and focus on building a positive economic and psychological view of the EU.
On migration: I've said this before but politicians should've had a better grip on integration.
I'm not by any means defending this Government, and they do seem to have made some very poor decisions..... the management of test and trace for one ...... but they were faced with a situation which have taxed first rate minds.
Which of course rules out Boris and his lot.
I mean I might predict Man City will win the PL but doesn't mean I want it to happen.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they aren't.