I expect there are bits of government that know they are in deep shit, but not all of government knows or accepts it. In my experience a lot of people can see shit hitting the fan but are prevented from blocking the path.
There is a bizarre story going around that the government wants to bring in daily testing for all schoolchildren to catch cases of Covid early.
The only thing is, while they are providing tests, they are not providing anyone to administer them. Which makes them completely useless.
Moreover, they seem not to have quite thought through the implications. Let’s say the testing was done at Chase High in Cannock, with around 1200 on roll. Each test takes around four minutes. That means somewhere roughly 800 hours of contact time has to be found. How? Do we cancel lessons? Kind of defeats the object. Do we do it before school? Only somebody who has never seen teenagers arriving at a school could even begin to think that feasible. Or do we do it as the fancy takes us?
When Covid is over there needs to be a reckoning in education. Every single quango, politician, civil servant and think tank operator associated with it needs to be sacked, stripped of pension and banned from working in any role more complex than that of sexton.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Prince Andrew is under the spotlight again now that Peter Nygard – another society figure he has ties to – has been arrested on sex trafficking charges. Some new questions are now being asked about Andrew's version of events, but no doubt HRH will simply consider this to be more of the same beastly treatment he has come to expect from the media.
When Handsy Andy was a guest at a party at Cameron Diaz's house a few years ago, one poor soul who ended up stuck talking to him says the Prince spent the entire evening complaining about how the UK press liked to build people up, only to knock them back down again.
Not only had it happened to him, he said, but also to his favourite band "The Radioheads".
I expect there are bits of government that know they are in deep shit, but not all of government knows or accepts it. In my experience a lot of people can see shit hitting the fan but are prevented from blocking the path.
There is a bizarre story going around that the government wants to bring in daily testing for all schoolchildren to catch cases of Covid early.
The only thing is, while they are providing tests, they are not providing anyone to administer them. Which makes them completely useless.
Moreover, they seem not to have quite thought through the implications. Let’s say the testing was done at Chase High in Cannock, with around 1200 on roll. Each test takes around four minutes. That means somewhere roughly 800 hours of contact time has to be found. How? Do we cancel lessons? Kind of defeats the object. Do we do it before school? Only somebody who has never seen teenagers arriving at a school could even begin to think that feasible. Or do we do it as the fancy takes us?
When Covid is over there needs to be a reckoning in education. Every single quango, politician, civil servant and think tank operator associated with it needs to be sacked, stripped of pension and banned from working in any role more complex than that of sexton.
I am part of a study to look at positivity in staff. I have to do a lateral flow test twice a week, before coming on shift, in my own time. We have 2,500 staff on the study..
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
It’s a word I have never heard used save by persons of a somewhat reactionary mindset. It may have started on the left but the right grabbed it and have run with it as fast as they possibly can.
I think its original coining was to mean a black person becoming aware of the sometimes subtle ways in which they are kept down. "Waking up" to this. Great word for such an event or process really.
But it is sadly now principally a weaponised word for facetious reactionaries to mock the whole notion of structural racism.
Sigh. It really isn't. We've covered this extensively today. And we even made progress.
Please let's not go back to square one again.
Make you a deal. We'll do a survey of the use of the word WOKE on here over the next few weeks and then we'll compute the percentage of that usage that is of the facetious reactionary mocking type.
Prince Andrew is under the spotlight again now that Peter Nygard – another society figure he has ties to – has been arrested on sex trafficking charges. Some new questions are now being asked about Andrew's version of events, but no doubt HRH will simply consider this to be more of the same beastly treatment he has come to expect from the media.
When Handsy Andy was a guest at a party at Cameron Diaz's house a few years ago, one poor soul who ended up stuck talking to him says the Prince spent the entire evening complaining about how the UK press liked to build people up, only to knock them back down again.
Not only had it happened to him, he said, but also to his favourite band "The Radioheads".
Prince Andrew does seem to have unfortunate poor taste in friends.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I expect there are bits of government that know they are in deep shit, but not all of government knows or accepts it. In my experience a lot of people can see shit hitting the fan but are prevented from blocking the path.
There is a bizarre story going around that the government wants to bring in daily testing for all schoolchildren to catch cases of Covid early.
The only thing is, while they are providing tests, they are not providing anyone to administer them. Which makes them completely useless.
Moreover, they seem not to have quite thought through the implications. Let’s say the testing was done at Chase High in Cannock, with around 1200 on roll. Each test takes around four minutes. That means somewhere roughly 800 hours of contact time has to be found. How? Do we cancel lessons? Kind of defeats the object. Do we do it before school? Only somebody who has never seen teenagers arriving at a school could even begin to think that feasible. Or do we do it as the fancy takes us?
When Covid is over there needs to be a reckoning in education. Every single quango, politician, civil servant and think tank operator associated with it needs to be sacked, stripped of pension and banned from working in any role more complex than that of sexton.
I am part of a study to look at positivity in staff. I have to do a lateral flow test twice a week, before coming on shift, in my own time. We have 2,500 staff on the study..
I can’t help but feel there is something of a difference in likely uptake between adult medical staff and teenage children either unsupervised or supervised by untrained staff.
Prince Andrew is under the spotlight again now that Peter Nygard – another society figure he has ties to – has been arrested on sex trafficking charges. Some new questions are now being asked about Andrew's version of events, but no doubt HRH will simply consider this to be more of the same beastly treatment he has come to expect from the media.
When Handsy Andy was a guest at a party at Cameron Diaz's house a few years ago, one poor soul who ended up stuck talking to him says the Prince spent the entire evening complaining about how the UK press liked to build people up, only to knock them back down again.
Not only had it happened to him, he said, but also to his favourite band "The Radioheads".
Prince Andrew does seem to have unfortunate poor taste in friends.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
They wanted to reduce the age of consent to 4 years old dude, not 16. dont defend them.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
I have heard it used once by someone who did mean it positively, but as you say that is almost always not the case anymore, though many would no doubt agree with the original intended goals if not the label.
I used to try to use it positively sometimes but then I realized that when I did people tended to think I was taking the piss.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
They wanted to reduce the age of consent to 4 years old dude, not 16. dont defend them.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
They wanted to reduce the age of consent to 4 years old dude, not 16. dont defend them.
No, I am not defending them.
Right wingers seem keen to insist that slavery and imperialism should be understood in the context of their times. I am just making the case that support for PIE in the Seventies and Eighties needs to be understood in the context of the times too.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
It’s a word I have never heard used save by persons of a somewhat reactionary mindset. It may have started on the left but the right grabbed it and have run with it as fast as they possibly can.
I think its original coining was to mean a black person becoming aware of the sometimes subtle ways in which they are kept down. "Waking up" to this. Great word for such an event or process really.
But it is sadly now principally a weaponised word for facetious reactionaries to mock the whole notion of structural racism.
Sigh. It really isn't. We've covered this extensively today. And we even made progress.
Please let's not go back to square one again.
Make you a deal. We'll do a survey of the use of the word WOKE on here over the next few weeks and then we'll compute the percentage of that usage that is of the facetious reactionary mocking type.
I'm a buyer at 75.
You`ll certainly win that bet. The word`s genesis is as you say, though you`ve explained in very moderate cuddly-sounding terms. It was originally a term of abuse levelled by black people towards other black people for not buying into the victimhood status that they "should" feel. Asleep to the injustices, they say. They go on to chide, bully and embarrass other black individuals for lack of solidarity; not thinking along collectivist lines. Bullying and brainwashing.
And of course it has crossed the Atlantic and has been applied to other areas of group-think, which liberals as well as conservatives dislike.
But let`s put the word aside (I haven`t even mentioned it). I agree it is now a weaponised word used against those of the left who exhibit it`s characteristics. But what about the words effects? They continue to prosper and will linger. The left created this monster, which they won`t escape very easily. Certainly not before the next election, and there is an association with the LP . Starmer taking the knee comes to mind.
I said earlier on today Arsenal had made a huge mistake in letting West Brom appoint Sam Allardyce, they should have got in there first.
Greatest ever England manager, IMHO. 100% win record - the stats don't lie.
I truly detest Sam Allardyce. I hate the way that when he loses - as he so often does - it is never because of the failings of him or his team. It is always because of the Ref, the pitch, the meat pies or the pigeon's crapping on his head in the bunker. Even the very best managers in history managing the greatest of teams have been honest enough at times to admit they were simply beaten by a better team.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
They wanted to reduce the age of consent to 4 years old dude, not 16. dont defend them.
No, I am not defending them.
Right wingers seem keen to insist that slavery and imperialism should be understood in the context of their times. I am just making the case that support for PIE in the Seventies and Eighties needs to be understood in the context of the times too.
Fair enough I take the point about mainstream left opinion of the time.
I said earlier on today Arsenal had made a huge mistake in letting West Brom appoint Sam Allardyce, they should have got in there first.
Greatest ever England manager, IMHO. 100% win record - the stats don't lie.
I truly detest Sam Allardyce. I hate the way that when he loses - as he so often does - it is never because of the failings of him or his team. It is always because of the Ref, the pitch, the meat pies or the pigeon's crapping on his head in the bunker. Even the very best managers in history managing the greatest of teams have been honest enough at times to admit they were simply beaten by a better team.
Hear, hear. He`s to football what Bernard Manning is to comedy.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
I best change all my passwords from 'PineappleDoesNotBelongOnPizza'.
It’s not much harder to guess ‘DieHardIsNotAChr!stmasMovie’ so I wouldn’t bother.
The thing about the MAGA2020! password is that it would, and presumably did, satisfy the guidelines as it combines letters, numbers and special characters (which are often either a full stop or an exclamation mark at the end).
The UK media's rather one-dimensional approach to challenging the Government is getting on my wick.
The Government tightens measures - the media wants to know why they aren't being loosened and when they will. The Government loosens measures - the media wants to know why they aren't being tightened and when they will. Rinse and repeat, continuously.
I'm sure if they really put their minds to it they could come up with a more effective form of challenge than that.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
@Casino_Royale your problem is that you lack the self awareness to realise that the people opposed to "equal rights for gay people" were making the same arguments you are now.
Gething, Paul Davies and Adam Price on BBC Wales. Gething doing better than Drakeford would have done. Adam Price is excellent. Paul Davies contradicts himself with every other sentence, although he is hopeful that the Welsh economy will take off after a Brexit Deal.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
Social reformers can overreach and get it wrong, so I think the challenge is good to test the arguments.
Are you really putting "equal rights for gay people" alongside those who support child abuse? Describing them both as "social reformers"?
Really?
Are you really?
Christ.
I thought he was making the point that sometimes when something is called political correctness gone mad it is mad (or at least not desirable), even if some things that were called political correctness gone mad, like equal rights for gay people, clearly are not mad or undesirable. That whether people called something political correctness gone mad is not, in itself, proof either that it is mad, nor that it isn't.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
Social reformers can overreach and get it wrong, so I think the challenge is good to test the arguments.
Are you really putting "equal rights for gay people" alongside those who support child abuse? Describing them both as "social reformers"?
Really?
Are you really?
Christ.
It just shows how society has changed. We are simultaneously both more puritanical and more liberated than we used to be in the Seventies.
I think this is a very good and useful point, expecially when considering when society can degrade as well as improve (not that becoming more puritanical or more liberated in themselves are bad things, it depends, just that things don't just follow one coherent liberal or conservative path).
The UK media's rather one-dimensional approach to challenging the Government is getting on my wick.
The Government tightens measures - the media wants to know why they aren't being loosened and when they will. The Government loosens measures - the media wants to know why they aren't being tightened and when they will. Rinse and repeat, continuously.
I'm sure if they really put their minds to it they could come up with a more effective form of challenge than that.
The UK media's rather one-dimensional approach to challenging the Government is getting on my wick.
The Government tightens measures - the media wants to know why they aren't being loosened and when they will. The Government loosens measures - the media wants to know why they aren't being tightened and when they will. Rinse and repeat, continuously.
I'm sure if they really put their minds to it they could come up with a more effective form of challenge than that.
I think this is largely down to who is doing the reporting. If it's a political correspondent you can almost guarantee that they have an axe to grind, and will be almost incapable* of understanding any of the scientific or medical aspects of an issue. When the science or medical correspondents are actually allowed to do their reporting they tend to do a far better job, and when making a critical report they do at least acknowledge that the issues do not have black or white answers.
* I've heard such nonsense from some reporters that as a result I would have to describe them as being thick and I wonder how they hell they ever got their job.
Could anyone enlighten me as to what a "Lateral flow test" is? I am not a plumber.
A very expensive rapid test.
Just a few quid, I think. Not very accurate though.
Last time I looked it was £20-30 per test.
So if you’re right, the government are proposing to spend £240 million a day on a test that isn’t particularly accurate in a setting where it can’t be easily administered and are not going to provide staff so it can’t be used anyway.
Assuming MPs aren't jetting all over the planet this Christmas, it does make recall very much easier. Especially with Zoom.
Can they vote via Zoom?
Does anyone know whether any trade deal legislation will be amendable?
It won't. The Government has offered to consult Parliament, who will get a yes/no vote. Even that is not binding as the power to sign trade deals is reserved to the Executive. However, it would be a brave Executive that asked Parlament, got the answer "No", and then signed it anyway.
I can make an exception for this year (where we have to ram through and replicate many trade deals asap) but in future I hope it becomes accepted that Parliament votes on future trade deals, just as we now do on major military commitments.
Yes, I agree. As withj military commitments, I suspect that the principle, once conceded, will be difficult to withdraw.
Prince Andrew is under the spotlight again now that Peter Nygard – another society figure he has ties to – has been arrested on sex trafficking charges. Some new questions are now being asked about Andrew's version of events, but no doubt HRH will simply consider this to be more of the same beastly treatment he has come to expect from the media.
When Handsy Andy was a guest at a party at Cameron Diaz's house a few years ago, one poor soul who ended up stuck talking to him says the Prince spent the entire evening complaining about how the UK press liked to build people up, only to knock them back down again.
Not only had it happened to him, he said, but also to his favourite band "The Radioheads".
Prince Andrew does seem to have unfortunate poor taste in friends.
Could anyone enlighten me as to what a "Lateral flow test" is? I am not a plumber.
A very expensive rapid test.
Just a few quid, I think. Not very accurate though.
Last time I looked it was £20-30 per test.
So if you’re right, the government are proposing to spend £240 million a day on a test that isn’t particularly accurate in a setting where it can’t be easily administered and are not going to provide staff so it can’t be used anyway.
What are they smoking, and where do I get some?
It's just never going to happen. By the time we get to the end of January everyone in care homes and hospitals will have been vaccinated.
Could anyone enlighten me as to what a "Lateral flow test" is? I am not a plumber.
A very expensive rapid test.
Just a few quid, I think. Not very accurate though.
Last time I looked it was £20-30 per test.
So if you’re right, the government are proposing to spend £240 million a day on a test that isn’t particularly accurate in a setting where it can’t be easily administered and are not going to provide staff so it can’t be used anyway.
What are they smoking, and where do I get some?
It's just never going to happen. By the time we get to the end of January everyone in care homes and hospitals will have been vaccinated.
But it’s not about that. It’s about whether we have to continue isolation procedures, which these are meant to reduce (although they won’t).
If we were really that close to the end, then it would be better to keep schools shut in January and pick up in February, crashing through with no half term. But we’re not.
What bothers me is the solution to the problem seems likely to cause many, many more problems than it could begin to solve.
I expect there are bits of government that know they are in deep shit, but not all of government knows or accepts it. In my experience a lot of people can see shit hitting the fan but are prevented from blocking the path.
There is a bizarre story going around that the government wants to bring in daily testing for all schoolchildren to catch cases of Covid early.
The only thing is, while they are providing tests, they are not providing anyone to administer them. Which makes them completely useless.
Moreover, they seem not to have quite thought through the implications. Let’s say the testing was done at Chase High in Cannock, with around 1200 on roll. Each test takes around four minutes. That means somewhere roughly 800 hours of contact time has to be found. How? Do we cancel lessons? Kind of defeats the object. Do we do it before school? Only somebody who has never seen teenagers arriving at a school could even begin to think that feasible. Or do we do it as the fancy takes us?
When Covid is over there needs to be a reckoning in education. Every single quango, politician, civil servant and think tank operator associated with it needs to be sacked, stripped of pension and banned from working in any role more complex than that of sexton.
I had always assumed that teachers’ time outside of lessons was an infinite, inexhaustible resource - a little like renewable power. And therefore any system, no matter how inefficient, was therefore worth giving a shot if a minister came up with it.
Incidentally, for my day job I've been reading up on the American fast-track arrangements for trade deals. The principle is that Congress shouldn't be able to amend them (just like in Briain), because it would be endlessly messy if the negotiators kept getting sent back to have another go. But what I didn't know is that Congress can specify conditions in advance, for instance saying "You can have the fast track so long as you don't allow foreign whisky in at reeduced tariffs". Also, although the current fast track arrangement effectively ends in April, it's common for Presidents to seek a new one. That seems more likely for Biden than rushinmg to do a deal before April with so much else going on. There might be a few mutual concessions - low whisky tariff vs end to sanctions on Boeing, is one rumour.
Could anyone enlighten me as to what a "Lateral flow test" is? I am not a plumber.
A very expensive rapid test.
Just a few quid, I think. Not very accurate though.
Last time I looked it was £20-30 per test.
So if you’re right, the government are proposing to spend £240 million a day on a test that isn’t particularly accurate in a setting where it can’t be easily administered and are not going to provide staff so it can’t be used anyway.
What are they smoking, and where do I get some?
It's just never going to happen. By the time we get to the end of January everyone in care homes and hospitals will have been vaccinated.
But it’s not about that. It’s about whether we have to continue isolation procedures, which these are meant to reduce (although they won’t).
If we were really that close to the end, then it would be better to keep schools shut in January and pick up in February, crashing through with no half term. But we’re not.
What bothers me is the solution to the problem seems likely to cause many, many more problems than it could begin to solve.
Yes, seems like a better idea to vaccinate teachers in round 3 and keep the schools closed in January, run the term until the middle of August.
On topic, I don't see this as a "gamble" at all. The gamble would have been for Johnson and the Government to curtail Christmas completely or restrict if further. As an example, Johnson says people should avoid "crowds at the Boxing Day sales" - well, one way to do that would have been to order all non-essential retail to close but for some reason (health vs wealth presumably) Johnson can't or won't do that.
Now, those who support the Prime Minister will rightly opine it's not the Government's place to save people from themselves - simply provide the guidance and allow individuals to exercise personal responsibility (that good old Thatcherite quality). The problem is, as we have seen consistently and persistently since the end of summer, people do need saving from themselves or rather, some people need saving from the selfishness of others.
The inability of a significant number of people in some areas of the country to observe even the most basic of public health precautions in a desperate attempt to live what they consider a "normal" life has brought us to the point when even a 4-week national "lockdown" (albeit much looser than that in March and April) has failed to significantly slow the virus in some areas and in others case numbers are rising sharply.
We're left then with the price of Christmas - it's clear any attempt at restricting gatherings would be ignored by many and are completely unenforceable in fact. The Government could do more to mitigate the gathering of crowds but choses not to - the siren voices of the "wealth" lobby are presumably hard at work. The consequence of a coupe of days decent trade might be a month of curtailed trade in January.
This has been the debate at the heart of the Government's response to Covid - an American-style response predicated on maintaining as much economic activity as possible or a European response aimed more at curtailing virus spread. The problem is neither has worked that well.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
Social reformers can overreach and get it wrong, so I think the challenge is good to test the arguments.
Are you really putting "equal rights for gay people" alongside those who support child abuse? Describing them both as "social reformers"?
Really?
Are you really?
Christ.
I thought he was making the point that sometimes when something is called political correctness gone mad it is mad (or at least not desirable), even if some things that were called political correctness gone mad, like equal rights for gay people, clearly are not mad or undesirable. That whether people called something political correctness gone mad is not, in itself, proof either that it is mad, nor that it isn't.
I would be sympathetic to engaging with @Casino_Royale 's "rational analysis" if he didn't use said "rational analysis" as cover to oppose everything supported by those he calls "woke" for no reason other than its "woke".
A classic case of "down with this sort of thing".
It would be better and more intellectually honest to tackle each "woke" issue on its own merits.
For example trans people. 3 separate issues.
1. If an adult decides they want to change their own gender? Who cares? doesn't hurt anyone else.
2. Toilets - easy "woke" solution to this - encourage the introduction of gender neutral door-to-ceiling cubicles with individual toilets and sinks. I don't understand why anyone would possibly against this. In terms of "safe spaces" for women, that is more delicate and something I don't feel comfortable commenting on as a man.
3. Whether children should be encouraged or allowed to "change their gender" at an early age. This is of course a much more contentious issue and for good reason. I personally don't believe a child should have any life-changing surgeries until they are much older but neither do I think such behaviours should be repressed and ignored. We know that does more harm than good. I personally do not know enough about the issue to comment on the science but I certainly wouldn't teach my own children to repress their feelings. I'd want them to discuss it openly and honestly, not only with me but with professionals.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
It’s a word I have never heard used save by persons of a somewhat reactionary mindset. It may have started on the left but the right grabbed it and have run with it as fast as they possibly can.
I think its original coining was to mean a black person becoming aware of the sometimes subtle ways in which they are kept down. "Waking up" to this. Great word for such an event or process really.
But it is sadly now principally a weaponised word for facetious reactionaries to mock the whole notion of structural racism.
Sigh. It really isn't. We've covered this extensively today. And we even made progress.
Please let's not go back to square one again.
Make you a deal. We'll do a survey of the use of the word WOKE on here over the next few weeks and then we'll compute the percentage of that usage that is of the facetious reactionary mocking type.
I'm a buyer at 75.
You`ll certainly win that bet. The word`s genesis is as you say, though you`ve explained in very moderate cuddly-sounding terms. It was originally a term of abuse levelled by black people towards other black people for not buying into the victimhood status that they "should" feel. Asleep to the injustices, they say. They go on to chide, bully and embarrass other black individuals for lack of solidarity; not thinking along collectivist lines. Bullying and brainwashing..
Could anyone enlighten me as to what a "Lateral flow test" is? I am not a plumber.
A very expensive rapid test.
Just a few quid, I think. Not very accurate though.
Last time I looked it was £20-30 per test.
So if you’re right, the government are proposing to spend £240 million a day on a test that isn’t particularly accurate in a setting where it can’t be easily administered and are not going to provide staff so it can’t be used anyway.
What are they smoking, and where do I get some?
It's just never going to happen. By the time we get to the end of January everyone in care homes and hospitals will have been vaccinated.
But it’s not about that. It’s about whether we have to continue isolation procedures, which these are meant to reduce (although they won’t).
If we were really that close to the end, then it would be better to keep schools shut in January and pick up in February, crashing through with no half term. But we’re not.
What bothers me is the solution to the problem seems likely to cause many, many more problems than it could begin to solve.
Yes, seems like a better idea to vaccinate teachers in round 3 and keep the schools closed in January, run the term until the middle of August.
It might make more sense, although I’m not convinced we could run through to August without lengthening breaks elsewhere.
Because it would make sense, we can be 90% sure that won’t happen.
@Casino_Royale your problem is that you lack the self awareness to realise that the people opposed to "equal rights for gay people" were making the same arguments you are now.
Sorry. I only debate issues like this with grown ups.
If you're not capable of doing so please don't reply to my posts.
The inability of a significant number of people in some areas of the country to observe even the most basic of public health precautions in a desperate attempt to live what they consider a "normal" life has brought us to the point when even a 4-week national "lockdown" (albeit much looser than that in March and April) has failed to significantly slow the virus in some areas and in others case numbers are rising sharply.
On the flipside I would argue that more recent "lockdowns" have just become relatively nuanced variants on what itself is already a fairly nuanced system - the tier system. Restrictions are increasingly blending into each other and the new normal is genuinely that.
Couple that with general weariness of covid life and it's hardly surprising we are running out of bullets in the gun to hold this off.
We always knew winter was going to be bad. The problem is autumn has been a big challenge before it too.
It seems like par for the course, when it comes to Piers.
Jeremy's anti-Semitism seems accidental. It is primarily down to his withering foolishness, and inability to differentiate Jewish people from the state of Israel. Piers seems more forthright and directly malign in his beliefs. Piers appears to be a nastier piece of work than Jeremy.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
Social reformers can overreach and get it wrong, so I think the challenge is good to test the arguments.
Are you really putting "equal rights for gay people" alongside those who support child abuse? Describing them both as "social reformers"?
Really?
Are you really?
Christ.
I thought he was making the point that sometimes when something is called political correctness gone mad it is mad (or at least not desirable), even if some things that were called political correctness gone mad, like equal rights for gay people, clearly are not mad or undesirable. That whether people called something political correctness gone mad is not, in itself, proof either that it is mad, nor that it isn't.
Yes, thank you.
Progressives and Conservatives - and even wild-eyed radicals to their Left and swivel-eyed eactionaries to their Right - all play a part in our political system in advocating good and rebutting bad ideas. Or, if you like, putting sensible boundaries on good ideas and containing bad ones. And knowing when all of those ideas have had their time, as many of them do.
If you just had Progressives unopposed you'd get some very radical and poorly thought-through ideas that would be thoroughly socially and economically destabilising and, eventually, generate a strong counter-reaction - possibly a violent one. Ultimately, it would discredit those ideas and set any form of progress backwards. Conversely, if you just had Conservatives nothing much would ever change - you'd risk society becoming undynamic and staid and, eventually, instability of another sort.
People think the slow but steady reforms of the last few decades (or even since the start of democracy) is a sign of the inevitability of progressive ideas, which would go much faster without for Conservatives.
It's not. It's a sign of the system working as intended.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
A large part of the PIE issue in the Seventies and Eighties was the usage of the law to criminalise young gay men, as the age of consent was 21 years at the time.
Might have seemed like foresight had they just campaigned to lower it to 16.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
I am sure that is the case. The more mainstream support was because of the way the law was being used for gay persecution.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
The inability of a significant number of people in some areas of the country to observe even the most basic of public health precautions in a desperate attempt to live what they consider a "normal" life has brought us to the point when even a 4-week national "lockdown" (albeit much looser than that in March and April) has failed to significantly slow the virus in some areas and in others case numbers are rising sharply.
There's probably a significant element of truth to that argument, but it may also be that any form of lockdown short of herding people into their homes and nailing or welding the doors shut for a month simply isn't that effective, and may to an extent even be counter-productive. Going in hard and early has failed abysmally in Wales, which probably has a lot to do with incarcerating a lot of not particularly well-off people in cramped, low quality housing with nothing much to do but watch TV. The disease runs through individual households like a dose of salts and then gets passed around when they all get lonely and/or bored to tears, and start visiting each others' houses - something that the authorities, save in truly egregious cases like massive house parties, are essentially powerless to prevent.
In the final analysis, more cautious folk (especially old or rich cautious folk, who may have the luxury of not being forced to go out to work each morning) can exercise discretion, but the disease is going to keep on propagating itself through those who don't care or can't afford to care for the rest of the Winter. I'm still not at all sure how much or how little of the improvement we saw through late Spring and into Summer was to do with all the desperate measures enacted to suppress the virus, and how much was the product of the warm weather. But I suspect that it is mainly the latter.
In short, more and lengthier lockdowns (and I'm as sure as I can be that everyone will be following the Welsh example in fairly short order after Christmas) may take the edge off the illness - at horrendous economic cost - but the only way we're getting any real relief is when a very substantial proportion of the population has been immunised and/or when the warm weather returns. The rest of the Winter is going to be fucking terrible.
I`ve just had an email from my local LibDem Chair. He say`s he hadn`t heard of the term "woke" until yesterday. He had to look it up. Are you surprised that local party activists have their heads up there arses or is this a common thing in your experience?
Generally speaking, people assume that everyone else is familiar with the language of their circle. I've certainly never heard anyone use the term and I've mainly seen it on PB, but I gather that in right-wing circles it's in common use, always pejoratively. As with "political correctness", the origin was left-wing usage, but it's long since disappeared in any context other than reactionary derision.
A few months ago I saw some newspaper comment pages from 1990.
Did you know what the Mail and Sun called political correctness gone mad?
Equality for gay people.
Attitudes were very different then. And the direction can go both ways.
There were those who thought the paedophile exchange was a good idea in the 70s, and marriage a repressive and outdated institution in the 90s, which civil partnerships would wholly replace one day. And the trans debate/gender identity debate now isn't simple either.
It's good to test the arguments of those making arguments for major social change.
For the record, I'd be very happy to exchange all the UK's paedophiles for... ummm... a Chas & Dave CD.
Have to wonder what the hell people are doing once the circuit breakers run out.
The evidence surely is that, with no vaccine, the virus was always going to do what the virus was going to do, whatever any administration does. Just like any large scale natural phenomenon.
Maybe we have slowed the virus down and spaced it out, at the cost of enormous collateral damage. But the notion of 'saving lives' is clearly utterly bogus. We may have 'delayed deaths' but at the cost of hastening other deaths, and maybe causing many unnecessary deaths.
1. The collateral damage happens anyway. Hence the overwhelming evidence from the US that places without lockdowns end up with the same (or even worse) economic performance.
2. How is "saving lives" bogus? Look at Sweden (which, by the way, has now locked down). It's death rate is 3-4x it's neighbours. Will there be a rush of Norwegians doing "catch up dying" in a few months?
The inability of a significant number of people in some areas of the country to observe even the most basic of public health precautions in a desperate attempt to live what they consider a "normal" life has brought us to the point when even a 4-week national "lockdown" (albeit much looser than that in March and April) has failed to significantly slow the virus in some areas and in others case numbers are rising sharply.
There's probably a significant element of truth to that argument, but it may also be that any form of lockdown short of herding people into their homes and nailing or welding the doors shut for a month simply isn't that effective, and may to an extent even be counter-productive. Going in hard and early has failed abysmally in Wales, which probably has a lot to do with incarcerating a lot of not particularly well-off people in cramped, low quality housing with nothing much to do but watch TV. The disease runs through individual households like a dose of salts and then gets passed around when they all get lonely and/or bored to tears, and start visiting each others' houses - something that the authorities, save in truly egregious cases like massive house parties, are essentially powerless to prevent.
In the final analysis, more cautious folk (especially old or rich cautious folk, who may have the luxury of not being forced to go out to work each morning) can exercise discretion, but the disease is going to keep on propagating itself through those who don't care or can't afford to care for the rest of the Winter. I'm still not at all sure how much or how little of the improvement we saw through late Spring and into Summer was to do with all the desperate measures enacted to suppress the virus, and how much was the product of the warm weather. But I suspect that it is mainly the latter.
In short, more and lengthier lockdowns (and I'm as sure as I can be that everyone will be following the Welsh example in fairly short order after Christmas) may take the edge off the illness - at horrendous economic cost - but the only way we're getting any real relief is when a very substantial proportion of the population has been immunised and/or when the warm weather returns. The rest of the Winter is going to be fucking terrible.
Wales has not failed because its lockdown was too early and too hard. It has failed because the lockdown was too short and the exit was too liberal.
I write this from the discomfort of my damp coastal Welsh cave.
We need to get on with the vaccines at super high speed as it is Covid meltdown central at the moment.
A friend's father, 89, who lives in London, got a call today asking him to come in for the vaccine on Friday. Things are moving, although people are having to travel and drop everything at short notice to get it.
Comments
I think the UK is trying to turn the thumbscrews with the House rising annoucement.
The only thing is, while they are providing tests, they are not providing anyone to administer them. Which makes them completely useless.
Moreover, they seem not to have quite thought through the implications. Let’s say the testing was done at Chase High in Cannock, with around 1200 on roll. Each test takes around four minutes. That means somewhere roughly 800 hours of contact time has to be found. How? Do we cancel lessons? Kind of defeats the object. Do we do it before school? Only somebody who has never seen teenagers arriving at a school could even begin to think that feasible. Or do we do it as the fancy takes us?
When Covid is over there needs to be a reckoning in education. Every single quango, politician, civil servant and think tank operator associated with it needs to be sacked, stripped of pension and banned from working in any role more complex than that of sexton.
Prince Andrew is under the spotlight again now that Peter Nygard – another society figure he has ties to – has been arrested on sex trafficking charges. Some new questions are now being asked about Andrew's version of events, but no doubt HRH will simply consider this to be more of the same beastly treatment he has come to expect from the media.
When Handsy Andy was a guest at a party at Cameron Diaz's house a few years ago, one poor soul who ended up stuck talking to him says the Prince spent the entire evening complaining about how the UK press liked to build people up, only to knock them back down again.
Not only had it happened to him, he said, but also to his favourite band "The Radioheads".
I'm a buyer at 75.
Unfortunately, they were campaigning to abolish the age of consent outright, and legalise sex between adults and children; a PIE survey of its members in 1978 and 1979 found that its members were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.
This is news, apparently
I don't.
It is worth noting that in the age of sexual liberation lusting after nuble youths was also mainstream. John Peel used to have "Schoolgirl of the year" slot in his programme, for example. Some of the other stuff would raise eyebrows now, but was just considered OK at the time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-peel-allegations-metoo-radio-1-jimmy-savile-a9097866.html
Right wingers seem keen to insist that slavery and imperialism should be understood in the context of their times. I am just making the case that support for PIE in the Seventies and Eighties needs to be understood in the context of the times too.
And of course it has crossed the Atlantic and has been applied to other areas of group-think, which liberals as well as conservatives dislike.
But let`s put the word aside (I haven`t even mentioned it). I agree it is now a weaponised word used against those of the left who exhibit it`s characteristics. But what about the words effects? They continue to prosper and will linger. The left created this monster, which they won`t escape very easily. Certainly not before the next election, and there is an association with the LP . Starmer taking the knee comes to mind.
Very unpleasant in here tonight.
Social reformers can overreach and get it wrong, so I think the challenge is good to test the arguments.
The Government tightens measures - the media wants to know why they aren't being loosened and when they will. The Government loosens measures - the media wants to know why they aren't being tightened and when they will. Rinse and repeat, continuously.
I'm sure if they really put their minds to it they could come up with a more effective form of challenge than that.
Really?
Are you really?
Christ.
I would vote for Adam Price!
The attitude to casual violence has changed a lot too. It used to be much more tolerated then.
* I've heard such nonsense from some reporters that as a result I would have to describe them as being thick and I wonder how they hell they ever got their job.
Your choice.
WOKE - interesting post from you there.
TBC since I'm about to go into a Spiral.
Series 1, Episode 1. Big decision.
What are they smoking, and where do I get some?
But it has been linked to racism and will probably end with us all being buggered.
If we were really that close to the end, then it would be better to keep schools shut in January and pick up in February, crashing through with no half term. But we’re not.
What bothers me is the solution to the problem seems likely to cause many, many more problems than it could begin to solve.
And therefore any system, no matter how inefficient, was therefore worth giving a shot if a minister came up with it.
On topic, I don't see this as a "gamble" at all. The gamble would have been for Johnson and the Government to curtail Christmas completely or restrict if further. As an example, Johnson says people should avoid "crowds at the Boxing Day sales" - well, one way to do that would have been to order all non-essential retail to close but for some reason (health vs wealth presumably) Johnson can't or won't do that.
Now, those who support the Prime Minister will rightly opine it's not the Government's place to save people from themselves - simply provide the guidance and allow individuals to exercise personal responsibility (that good old Thatcherite quality). The problem is, as we have seen consistently and persistently since the end of summer, people do need saving from themselves or rather, some people need saving from the selfishness of others.
The inability of a significant number of people in some areas of the country to observe even the most basic of public health precautions in a desperate attempt to live what they consider a "normal" life has brought us to the point when even a 4-week national "lockdown" (albeit much looser than that in March and April) has failed to significantly slow the virus in some areas and in others case numbers are rising sharply.
We're left then with the price of Christmas - it's clear any attempt at restricting gatherings would be ignored by many and are completely unenforceable in fact. The Government could do more to mitigate the gathering of crowds but choses not to - the siren voices of the "wealth" lobby are presumably hard at work. The consequence of a coupe of days decent trade might be a month of curtailed trade in January.
This has been the debate at the heart of the Government's response to Covid - an American-style response predicated on maintaining as much economic activity as possible or a European response aimed more at curtailing virus spread. The problem is neither has worked that well.
A classic case of "down with this sort of thing".
It would be better and more intellectually honest to tackle each "woke" issue on its own merits.
For example trans people. 3 separate issues.
1. If an adult decides they want to change their own gender? Who cares? doesn't hurt anyone else.
2. Toilets - easy "woke" solution to this - encourage the introduction of gender neutral door-to-ceiling cubicles with individual toilets and sinks. I don't understand why anyone would possibly against this. In terms of "safe spaces" for women, that is more delicate and something I don't feel comfortable commenting on as a man.
3. Whether children should be encouraged or allowed to "change their gender" at an early age. This is of course a much more contentious issue and for good reason. I personally don't believe a child should have any life-changing surgeries until they are much older but neither do I think such behaviours should be repressed and ignored. We know that does more harm than good. I personally do not know enough about the issue to comment on the science but I certainly wouldn't teach my own children to repress their feelings. I'd want them to discuss it openly and honestly, not only with me but with professionals.
Other accounts are available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#Mid-_and_late_19th_century
Because it would make sense, we can be 90% sure that won’t happen.
https://www.abingdonhealth.com/contract-services/what-is-a-lateral-flow-immunoassay/
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1339289209794924548
If you're not capable of doing so please don't reply to my posts.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1339260042378424322
Couple that with general weariness of covid life and it's hardly surprising we are running out of bullets in the gun to hold this off.
We always knew winter was going to be bad. The problem is autumn has been a big challenge before it too.
Jeremy's anti-Semitism seems accidental. It is primarily down to his withering foolishness, and inability to differentiate Jewish people from the state of Israel. Piers seems more forthright and directly malign in his beliefs. Piers appears to be a nastier piece of work than Jeremy.
Progressives and Conservatives - and even wild-eyed radicals to their Left and swivel-eyed eactionaries to their Right - all play a part in our political system in advocating good and rebutting bad ideas. Or, if you like, putting sensible boundaries on good ideas and containing bad ones. And knowing when all of those ideas have had their time, as many of them do.
If you just had Progressives unopposed you'd get some very radical and poorly thought-through ideas that would be thoroughly socially and economically destabilising and, eventually, generate a strong counter-reaction - possibly a violent one. Ultimately, it would discredit those ideas and set any form of progress backwards. Conversely, if you just had Conservatives nothing much would ever change - you'd risk society becoming undynamic and staid and, eventually, instability of another sort.
People think the slow but steady reforms of the last few decades (or even since the start of democracy) is a sign of the inevitability of progressive ideas, which would go much faster without for Conservatives.
It's not. It's a sign of the system working as intended.
Both sides need each other.
This might horrify you but I once thought I might be a liberal democrat because of my attitudes to capital and corporal punishment - very anti.
But, you'll be pleased to hear I grew out of that fairly quickly.
https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1339283504979435521
In the final analysis, more cautious folk (especially old or rich cautious folk, who may have the luxury of not being forced to go out to work each morning) can exercise discretion, but the disease is going to keep on propagating itself through those who don't care or can't afford to care for the rest of the Winter. I'm still not at all sure how much or how little of the improvement we saw through late Spring and into Summer was to do with all the desperate measures enacted to suppress the virus, and how much was the product of the warm weather. But I suspect that it is mainly the latter.
In short, more and lengthier lockdowns (and I'm as sure as I can be that everyone will be following the Welsh example in fairly short order after Christmas) may take the edge off the illness - at horrendous economic cost - but the only way we're getting any real relief is when a very substantial proportion of the population has been immunised and/or when the warm weather returns. The rest of the Winter is going to be fucking terrible.
2. How is "saving lives" bogus? Look at Sweden (which, by the way, has now locked down). It's death rate is 3-4x it's neighbours. Will there be a rush of Norwegians doing "catch up dying" in a few months?
I write this from the discomfort of my damp coastal Welsh cave.