That's the Nats narrowly missing an overall Maj. Also has YES behind by 49/51
A 19 majority for independence is a comprehensive majority for a second referendum, even if it would be won by Yes which would likely settle the issue at last.
lol.. The government will deny a vote (yes yes yes, you disagree). The Nats failing to get a majority (should that happen, still a long way to go) will be helpful in justifying that. "Look, THE party for independence only got X votes and seats", "it's not a majority opinion, Scots care more about other things first, fixing the economy after plague, etc".
This is realpolitik. I do accept that if Sturgeon had got some Home Rule Ireland type vote 70%+ votes and seats for her Nationalist party, then morally the case would be harder to argue against (HMG would still try)
But the SNP stumbling at the fence? A win for Westminster
Plus see all the various polls saying Scots don't want a vote til 2023 at least, Scots don't want a wildcat referendum
I said a couple of weeks ago that the SNP not getting a majority was a VALUE bet. The odds then were (IIRC) about 5/1 against them failing. I was right, it was VALUE.
I don't disagree the government will deny a vote.
I think it might but that the government would be wrong to do so.
A 19 majority for Independence is still a comprehensive Nat majority.
I'm happy to call out my own party when I think it's in the wrong.
You are happy even not to vote for them, as you did when you voted Labour in 2001
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Grifting millions not enough? Feel underappreciated? Contact Gongs R Us now for a no obligation quote on how we can help you get that meaningless bauble you so richly deserve!
That's the Nats narrowly missing an overall Maj. Also has YES behind by 49/51
A 19 majority for independence is a comprehensive majority for a second referendum, even if it would be won by Yes which would likely settle the issue at last.
lol.. The government will deny a vote (yes yes yes, you disagree). The Nats failing to get a majority (should that happen, still a long way to go) will be helpful in justifying that. "Look, THE party for independence only got X votes and seats", "it's not a majority opinion, Scots care more about other things first, fixing the economy after plague, etc".
This is realpolitik. I do accept that if Sturgeon had got some Home Rule Ireland type vote 70%+ votes and seats for her Nationalist party, then morally the case would be harder to argue against (HMG would still try)
But the SNP stumbling at the fence? A win for Westminster
Plus see all the various polls saying Scots don't want a vote til 2023 at least, Scots don't want a wildcat referendum
I said a couple of weeks ago that the SNP not getting a majority was a VALUE bet. The odds then were (IIRC) about 5/1 against them failing. I was right, it was VALUE.
I don't disagree the government will deny a vote.
I think it might but that the government would be wrong to do so.
A 19 majority for Independence is still a comprehensive Nat majority.
I'm happy to call out my own party when I think it's in the wrong.
You are happy even not to vote for them, as you did when you voted Labour in 2001
Yes. My party has to earn my vote, it is not entitled to it.
Very much looking forward to the Covid lockdown ending so that women can go out all night while men have stay at home from 6pm. To stop me from doing something I have never engaged in my entire life - being a sex pest. Or in any way being a threat to women, however paranoid the delusion. I am in that great majority of men that have been brought up to be respectful to women and not to invade their personal space without a clear and unambiguous invitation. Have I missed lots of sex as a result? Possibly. But I can live with that.
Anyway, the headlines would suggest restricting the curfew to politicians and footballers cures much of the problem.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Not sure that now is quite the moment to suggest that men are also the victims in this.
That's the Nats narrowly missing an overall Maj. Also has YES behind by 49/51
A 19 majority for independence is a comprehensive majority for a second referendum, even if it would be won by Yes which would likely settle the issue at last.
lol.. The government will deny a vote (yes yes yes, you disagree). The Nats failing to get a majority (should that happen, still a long way to go) will be helpful in justifying that. "Look, THE party for independence only got X votes and seats", "it's not a majority opinion, Scots care more about other things first, fixing the economy after plague, etc".
This is realpolitik. I do accept that if Sturgeon had got some Home Rule Ireland type vote 70%+ votes and seats for her Nationalist party, then morally the case would be harder to argue against (HMG would still try)
But the SNP stumbling at the fence? A win for Westminster
Plus see all the various polls saying Scots don't want a vote til 2023 at least, Scots don't want a wildcat referendum
I said a couple of weeks ago that the SNP not getting a majority was a VALUE bet. The odds then were (IIRC) about 5/1 against them failing. I was right, it was VALUE.
I don't disagree the government will deny a vote.
I think it might but that the government would be wrong to do so.
A 19 majority for Independence is still a comprehensive Nat majority.
I'm happy to call out my own party when I think it's in the wrong.
Yes, you are consistent on this, which is worthy (deeply misguided, I believe, but not without merit)
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of walking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
My best guess is a central reservation for a crossing on a busy road.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Not sure that now is quite the moment to suggest that men are also the victims in this.
Why not?
Most murder victims are men. Murder is horrid and evil and all murder should be fought not just the murder of pretty girls.
That's the Nats narrowly missing an overall Maj. Also has YES behind by 49/51
A 19 majority for independence is a comprehensive majority for a second referendum, even if it would be won by Yes which would likely settle the issue at last.
lol.. The government will deny a vote (yes yes yes, you disagree). The Nats failing to get a majority (should that happen, still a long way to go) will be helpful in justifying that. "Look, THE party for independence only got X votes and seats", "it's not a majority opinion, Scots care more about other things first, fixing the economy after plague, etc".
This is realpolitik. I do accept that if Sturgeon had got some Home Rule Ireland type vote 70%+ votes and seats for her Nationalist party, then morally the case would be harder to argue against (HMG would still try)
But the SNP stumbling at the fence? A win for Westminster
Plus see all the various polls saying Scots don't want a vote til 2023 at least, Scots don't want a wildcat referendum
I said a couple of weeks ago that the SNP not getting a majority was a VALUE bet. The odds then were (IIRC) about 5/1 against them failing. I was right, it was VALUE.
I don't disagree the government will deny a vote.
I think it might but that the government would be wrong to do so.
A 19 majority for Independence is still a comprehensive Nat majority.
I'm happy to call out my own party when I think it's in the wrong.
You are happy even not to vote for them, as you did when you voted Labour in 2001
Yes. My party has to earn my vote, it is not entitled to it.
What about you?
It is my party as I consistently vote for it.
It is not your party, in your own words you are merely a centre right liberal leaning swing voter not a Tory
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
We don't know the details of the Everard case - how the police officer allegedly abducted her. It doesn't sound like it is a "normal" abduction / rape / murder case because of this added factor.
I fear that this will allow some men to dismiss it as a one-off. The method of the abduction / rape / murder may be a little unusual but the predilection of a small number of men to prey on women for the purposes of abduction / rape / murder is not.
What can I as a man with a wife and a daughter do about it? I can Speak Out. Nobody is saying "all men are rapists" because we aren't. But go and ask the women in your lives today if they have experienced fear when alone that the man following them, or the figure in the shadows, or the guys "having fun" by staring or making suggesting comments may be the one who preys on them. ALL the women I know have had this. All of them.
So yes, the onus is on the majority of men to stand up for and speak out for the women in their lives. So that the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority stop. So that the tiny tiny minority of lunatics who want to abduct / rape / murder for sport have nowhere to hide.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
A counter-argument:
When Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair in the run up to the Brexit vote, do you think his choice of victim was made at random? Of course not: he had been surrounded by increasingly vicious rhetoric that painted Remain MPs as traitors & fifth columnists. Those who spent their time online thundering on about traitorous Remainers clearly had no intention of inciting murder, yet when those words fell on susceptible ears we all know the result.
In a similar fashion, as RochdaleP says: the the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority provide cover for those who are at risk of being tipped over the edge onto outright violence towards women. When those individuals find themselves surrounded by men who do those things, the message they hear repeated over and over again is that women are things, objects to be exploited. This is why it’s everybody’s responsibility to push back on that kind behaviour - not just because it’s unpleasant for the targets in and of itself, but also because it is the misogynist swamp in which the violent sociopaths swim - it’s the environment that tells them that their behaviour is OK, even approved of.
Drain the swamp.
No, I don't think Jo Cox was killed at random. She was assassinated. And you may have a point about the circumstances in which it happened.
We don't know the details of what's gone on in the current case, but it's possible (likely?) that this young woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time (though the killer may have identified her as a target before the night in question).
What makes some men behave like this? I don't know, but I'm not sure attributing it to catcalling is particularly helpful.
This man was a 49 year old officer in the MET. During his career, he will have been bathed and basted in PC ideology, and will be highly fluent in woke. The suggestion that in order not to go around abducting people the rest of society needs the same is inapposite to say the least.
You are both (wilfully?) misunderstanding the point I was making.
Nobody is attributing a murder directly to catcalling. What I (and others) are saying is that the smorgasbord of misogynistic behaviours that many men indulge in is creating the psychological space for some men to think that their more extreme behaviour towards women is OK, even approved of by other men. After all, the thinking goes, if they didn’t approve of it, why didn’t they say anything when I said those things about women down the pub?
Is it really "woke" to suggest that the endless low-grade sexual harrassment of women out on the street needs to stop? I don’t think it’s woke: I think it’s basic common decency. Something that, regardless of our political stance, we surely ought to be able to agree on.
There are a number of issues with this line of argument.
First, most men do neither of those things - neither the serious assault, nor the low-level harrassment - and so are already making a positive contribution to common decency. Those who persist in doing those things are unlikely to be amenable to sweet reason from the decent majority. But by all means, we should beef up law enforcement substantially to stop and punish those who break the law.
Second, the argument that low-level behaviours create a 'psychological space' for serious crime is problematic in multiple ways. To begin with, is it even true that their elimination would prevent higher-level crimes? Are there no murders in politically-correct societies? It seems unlikely. Next, the idea that innocent, law-abiding members of a group with immutable characteristics are responsible for the criminals in that group is generally considered an unacceptable approach, especially on the left. Was it acceptable when Donald Trump blamed entire racial groups for their criminal elements - for creating a fertile 'psychological space' for their crimes, if you will? If not, why is it acceptable to replicate that Trumpian approach with a group that is linked only by their membership of the same sex?
None of this really follows, or is consistent with other avowed principles. All it means is that men are not a group in political favour on the left, and so discrimination against them is not only permitted, but encouraged. Which is hardly either just or helpful.
You are (yet again) addressing the wicked witch of woke rather than your actual conversational partner. This allows you merrily to recast a postulated link between the objectification of women in society and the level of crime against them as in some way a call for discrimination against men. It's debate, Jim, but not as we know it.
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
That's the Nats narrowly missing an overall Maj. Also has YES behind by 49/51
A 19 majority for independence is a comprehensive majority for a second referendum, even if it would be won by Yes which would likely settle the issue at last.
lol.. The government will deny a vote (yes yes yes, you disagree). The Nats failing to get a majority (should that happen, still a long way to go) will be helpful in justifying that. "Look, THE party for independence only got X votes and seats", "it's not a majority opinion, Scots care more about other things first, fixing the economy after plague, etc".
This is realpolitik. I do accept that if Sturgeon had got some Home Rule Ireland type vote 70%+ votes and seats for her Nationalist party, then morally the case would be harder to argue against (HMG would still try)
But the SNP stumbling at the fence? A win for Westminster
Plus see all the various polls saying Scots don't want a vote til 2023 at least, Scots don't want a wildcat referendum
I said a couple of weeks ago that the SNP not getting a majority was a VALUE bet. The odds then were (IIRC) about 5/1 against them failing. I was right, it was VALUE.
I don't disagree the government will deny a vote.
I think it might but that the government would be wrong to do so.
A 19 majority for Independence is still a comprehensive Nat majority.
I'm happy to call out my own party when I think it's in the wrong.
You are happy even not to vote for them, as you did when you voted Labour in 2001
Yes. My party has to earn my vote, it is not entitled to it.
What about you?
It is my party as I consistently vote for it.
It is not your party, in your own words you are merely a centre right liberal leaning swing voter not a Tory
It is my party because I am a member and supporter and have been almost my entire adult life.
But if my party leaves me I will vote for another party. I support my party as the best way of getting my views put forward, I don't change my views to suit my party.
At least we know at elections between the two of us the party is best advised to take your vote for granted but to ensure it keeps mine.
A male curfew would have saved me shovelling horseshit for 2 hours yesterday and again helping my partner down the stables this evening. She'd be thrilled if it was implemented.
I'd say the larger EU countries are probably somewhere between 8-10 weeks behind Britain at this stage.
Numbers will be interesting today as it was expected from yesterday onwards Britain would be ramping up supply. Would hope for some 600k upward days later this week if that's the case.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
The persistence with which they claimed that the victims were all sex workers despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the bizarre conclusions about accents and locations (once again ignoring good quality evidence to the contrary) and the absurd way in which the misdirection of the fake correspondence was apparently taken as gospel despite several pointing out its inconsistencies were cumulatively just horrific and undoubtedly caused the deaths of many women. Organising such a man hunt before computers was always going to be hard but it was incredibly incompetent.
I absolutely agree that women should not be restricted in their lives and it is society's duty to ensure that does not happen by providing adequate protection. Unlike some I do not think the idea is "batshit crazy" and I can see the logic of it to some degree but I do fear that it perpetuates a myth that a significant number of men are dangerous.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
*raises hand*
I'm a total bender. Am I allowed out after 6pm if I promise always to wear my rainbow flag badge?
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
You would just build massive resentment. You would see no change - not positive at least.
Try coming up with ways to level the playing field. Give all women that want one a rape alarm - with inbuilt GPS location for when it goes off. Give all women that want them self-defence classes. Allow all women to carry a taser. Men will just have to accept that if they overstep the mark, they are going to get tasered in the bollocks.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Don't quite get your last sentence. Everyone bar the perpetrator(s) of this crime is innocent of it - and of those only one is the victim.
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
Isn't today the day we expect a serious surge in UK vax, or it the weekend, or next Monday?
The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
It was said originally as the surge would be arriving today, so visible in jabs from next Monday (which are probably reported next wednesday).
It was confirmed last night they're in the warehouse now, so in next few days they'll be distributed to channels, then in arms, then reported in daily figures but the figures may change a week from now.
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
His column in Feb said that CofE vicars should reflect the makeup of their congregations:
I too believe that the clergy of the Church of England should reflect the sort of people who sit in our pews. It must do so in terms of gender, ethnicity and sexuality. Also, unless you believe that the clergy are somehow more morally enlightened than the laity — and I don’t — then it needs better to reflect their politics as well.
First comment was, summarised: "Forgive me, vicar, but aren't the clergy supposed to represent God?".
BoZo got Brexit done postponed Brexit for another year because it's too hard...
Brexit's done you idiot.
Brexit includes deciding for ourselves what paperwork we want filling in, and which paperwork is not a priority.
That you want us to be doing red tape just because the EU does red tape shows you haven't wrapped your head around what Brexit means yet. Brexit means we decide. Not the EU, not anyone else. If we don't want red tape then so be it, that's our choice.
If there's any truth at all to this then why haven't we heard about it over here, where we've probably used more of the stuff that the whole of the rest of Europe put together? It's hard not to suspect that the consequences of the Macron and Handelstwatt episodes aren't manifesting again here.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Its true that the Yorkshire ripper enquiry was very poor. Sutcliffe was interviewed on multiple occasions. Its also true that he would have been caught far faster today as we have so much better resources (cross linked reports on the computer, DNA, CCTV everywhere, ANPR). Its easy to criticise the investigation, but policing was different then too.
Isn't today the day we expect a serious surge in UK vax, or it the weekend, or next Monday?
The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
It was said originally as the surge would be arriving today, so visible in jabs from next Monday (which are probably reported next wednesday).
It was confirmed last night they're in the warehouse now, so in next few days they'll be distributed to channels, then in arms, then reported in daily figures but the figures may change a week from now.
Sigh... On the 3rd of March the following letter was sent out -
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
The reporting we get is 2 days behind.
So the surge in vaccine availability will be reported on the 13th - 2 days from now.....
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
They are all over my part of London, as well. Many seem utterly pointless and counter-productive, all they have done is forced cars to take circuitous routes by new andcongested rat runs, slowing down the traffic overall and making life miserable for anyone near the new work-around routes.
Khan fucks up basically anything he touches, and is largely invisible. And he will cruise to the easiest of victories. Sigh
Isn't today the day we expect a serious surge in UK vax, or it the weekend, or next Monday?
The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
It's from today, so should show up in the figures published at 2pm tomorrow.
Probably numbers on Saturday if the deliveries are starting today as I think prior day data is mostly incomplete same as case level data from the day before.
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
Yep - a leading Lexiteer.
Me too with The Moral Maze. It's not really what you want to be nodding off to on a Saturday night.
Mr. Seal, could be wrong but I believe vaccines to the Republic of Ireland was raised a couple of months ago and the Irish indicated they didn't want/need it.
That might have been during the lunatic "Astrazeneca is poison" phase, though.
We don't know the details of the Everard case - how the police officer allegedly abducted her. It doesn't sound like it is a "normal" abduction / rape / murder case because of this added factor.
I fear that this will allow some men to dismiss it as a one-off. The method of the abduction / rape / murder may be a little unusual but the predilection of a small number of men to prey on women for the purposes of abduction / rape / murder is not.
What can I as a man with a wife and a daughter do about it? I can Speak Out. Nobody is saying "all men are rapists" because we aren't. But go and ask the women in your lives today if they have experienced fear when alone that the man following them, or the figure in the shadows, or the guys "having fun" by staring or making suggesting comments may be the one who preys on them. ALL the women I know have had this. All of them.
So yes, the onus is on the majority of men to stand up for and speak out for the women in their lives. So that the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority stop. So that the tiny tiny minority of lunatics who want to abduct / rape / murder for sport have nowhere to hide.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
A counter-argument:
When Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair in the run up to the Brexit vote, do you think his choice of victim was made at random? Of course not: he had been surrounded by increasingly vicious rhetoric that painted Remain MPs as traitors & fifth columnists. Those who spent their time online thundering on about traitorous Remainers clearly had no intention of inciting murder, yet when those words fell on susceptible ears we all know the result.
In a similar fashion, as RochdaleP says: the the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority provide cover for those who are at risk of being tipped over the edge onto outright violence towards women. When those individuals find themselves surrounded by men who do those things, the message they hear repeated over and over again is that women are things, objects to be exploited. This is why it’s everybody’s responsibility to push back on that kind behaviour - not just because it’s unpleasant for the targets in and of itself, but also because it is the misogynist swamp in which the violent sociopaths swim - it’s the environment that tells them that their behaviour is OK, even approved of.
Drain the swamp.
No, I don't think Jo Cox was killed at random. She was assassinated. And you may have a point about the circumstances in which it happened.
We don't know the details of what's gone on in the current case, but it's possible (likely?) that this young woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time (though the killer may have identified her as a target before the night in question).
What makes some men behave like this? I don't know, but I'm not sure attributing it to catcalling is particularly helpful.
This man was a 49 year old officer in the MET. During his career, he will have been bathed and basted in PC ideology, and will be highly fluent in woke. The suggestion that in order not to go around abducting people the rest of society needs the same is inapposite to say the least.
You are both (wilfully?) misunderstanding the point I was making.
Nobody is attributing a murder directly to catcalling. What I (and others) are saying is that the smorgasbord of misogynistic behaviours that many men indulge in is creating the psychological space for some men to think that their more extreme behaviour towards women is OK, even approved of by other men. After all, the thinking goes, if they didn’t approve of it, why didn’t they say anything when I said those things about women down the pub?
Is it really "woke" to suggest that the endless low-grade sexual harrassment of women out on the street needs to stop? I don’t think it’s woke: I think it’s basic common decency. Something that, regardless of our political stance, we surely ought to be able to agree on.
There are a number of issues with this line of argument.
First, most men do neither of those things - neither the serious assault, nor the low-level harrassment - and so are already making a positive contribution to common decency. Those who persist in doing those things are unlikely to be amenable to sweet reason from the decent majority. But by all means, we should beef up law enforcement substantially to stop and punish those who break the law.
Second, the argument that low-level behaviours create a 'psychological space' for serious crime is problematic in multiple ways. To begin with, is it even true that their elimination would prevent higher-level crimes? Are there no murders in politically-correct societies? It seems unlikely. Next, the idea that innocent, law-abiding members of a group with immutable characteristics are responsible for the criminals in that group is generally considered an unacceptable approach, especially on the left. Was it acceptable when Donald Trump blamed entire racial groups for their criminal elements - for creating a fertile 'psychological space' for their crimes, if you will? If not, why is it acceptable to replicate that Trumpian approach with a group that is linked only by their membership of the same sex?
None of this really follows, or is consistent with other avowed principles. All it means is that men are not a group in political favour on the left, and so discrimination against them is not only permitted, but encouraged. Which is hardly either just or helpful.
You are (yet again) addressing the wicked witch of woke rather than your actual conversational partner. This allows you merrily to recast a postulated link between the objectification of women in society and the level of crime against them as in some way a call for discrimination against men. It's debate, Jim, but not as we know it.
Eh? I addressed the specific points Phil made, one after the other. If my interlocutors were less slippery about the real-world consequences of their arguments - i.e. what exactly they want the vast majority of decent men to do or have done to them that is not already happening - then I wouldn't have to make any inferences at all. So stop making me guess, conversation partner.
Mr. Seal, could be wrong but I believe vaccines to the Republic of Ireland was raised a couple of months ago and the Irish indicated they didn't want/need it.
That might have been during the lunatic "Astrazeneca is poison" phase, though.
This was an application under the Forced Marriage etc. (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011 which allowed an Indian girl who was being coerced into an arranged marriage by her family to obtain a protection order which made it illegal for her family to contact her or seek to ascertain her whereabouts.
I must confess I have never come across such an order before. It will be interesting to see if it is actually effective. On the Sheriff's description it appears that the mother was much more of an issue than the father in that particular case.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
More at risk of what, is the question.
Well the topic today is murder sadly.
I believe 19/22 murder victims in the Capital so far this year are male. I don't know if that includes this girl or not, so it might be 19/23 now sadly. So men are 5-6 more likely to be murdered than women are.
It is an absolute tragedy and horrible that this woman has been murdered. But so too is every other murder victim.
Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I see they've reduced the number of signatures required to stand as Mayor to 66, rather than 330, because of COVID. That's going to make it much easier for candidates without major party support to stand. That, in turn, may also shave off votes from the more mainstream candidates in the first round, with Bailey and Berry perhaps most vulnerable to that.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
Men are definitely more at risk of being on the receiving end of violence, as the Criminologist who came on R4 this morning pointed out.
I don’t know how the numbers work out for sexual assault though.
The Tesla decision. It can both be true that Berlin / Germany was a pull factor and Brexit a push factor. Lets be honest about it - it would be a brave decision to chose to invest $lots into a factory for continental export into Britain right now. Lets also be honest about how obvious a European pick Germany is.
Had we not got the current trading FUBAR its still perfectly likely that Berlin would have more appeal than Sunderland. Can't think why...
I think this is a fair assessment of the situation, though I am smiling at eek's correction.
Grifting millions not enough? Feel underappreciated? Contact Gongs R Us now for a no obligation quote on how we can help you get that meaningless bauble you so richly deserve!
If there's any truth at all to this then why haven't we heard about it over here, where we've probably used more of the stuff that the whole of the rest of Europe put together? It's hard not to suspect that the consequences of the Macron and Handelstwatt episodes aren't manifesting again here.
Without access to the data, it's hard to come to any conclusion. However the EMA statement apparently says that the cases of blood clots are not higher than normal population levels. I don't know what data that draws on, but even if it's Denmark only, they've used a fair bit of the stuff, probably enough to pick up a difference if it exists (i.e. lack of difference more likely due to no difference than not enough data to see the difference).
We'll have to wait and see what happens, but in the face of known benefits from taking the vaccine against unsubstantiated risks, it would seem prudent to continue the programme while investigating, rather than halt it. Suspension, unless they're supplied with Pfizer/other vaccines quicker than they can get them into arms so there's no decrease in vaccination rates, will definitely cost lives.
If there's any truth at all to this then why haven't we heard about it over here, where we've probably used more of the stuff that the whole of the rest of Europe put together? It's hard not to suspect that the consequences of the Macron and Handelstwatt episodes aren't manifesting again here.
Apparently linked to a single batch from the Belgian subcontractor fucking up the production process under pressure from the client. Despite what they might think in the EU it hasn't effected us because we don't get AZ doses from that Belgian production.
What's worrying is how these doses made it through manufacturer and regulatory verification. We have a really, really strict process of double checking everything, the MHRA takes samples from each batch to test for impurities and ensuring they are properly sterile. I'd be shocked if European national regulators don't also do this.
Mr. Seal, could be wrong but I believe vaccines to the Republic of Ireland was raised a couple of months ago and the Irish indicated they didn't want/need it.
That might have been during the lunatic "Astrazeneca is poison" phase, though.
That is also my recollection, although I don't think it had anything to do with the 'AZ is poison' narrative - more to do with EU solidarity I expect.
If the position has shifted and there's any truth to the suggestion that the Irish Government has raised the subject then it's probably out of desperation. If it comes to pass that Dublin is still locked down when Belfast is partying like it's 1999 then this won't be a good look for them.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
More at risk of what, is the question.
Well the topic today is murder sadly.
I believe 19/22 murder victims in the Capital so far this year are male. I don't know if that includes this girl or not, so it might be 19/23 now sadly. So men are 5-6 more likely to be murdered than women are.
It is an absolute tragedy and horrible that this woman has been murdered. But so too is every other murder victim.
Is it really about her murder though Philip?
Or is it about the context of a woman that should have been safe on her way home, and the response from some parts of the press or twittersphere? Is a woman or man more likely to be murdered walking home, doing absolutely nothing to invite trouble?
Isn't today the day we expect a serious surge in UK vax, or it the weekend, or next Monday?
The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
So far our performance this month has been a bit disappointing. Hopefully the second half will be better. My wife got her letter today because she is much, much older than me (well, 1 year) but at 59 I have still got nothing. It's frustrating.
She looks much younger of course, and far more attractive. *looks around nervously*
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
His column in Feb said that CofE vicars should reflect the makeup of their congregations:
I too believe that the clergy of the Church of England should reflect the sort of people who sit in our pews. It must do so in terms of gender, ethnicity and sexuality. Also, unless you believe that the clergy are somehow more morally enlightened than the laity — and I don’t — then it needs better to reflect their politics as well.
First comment was, summarised: "Forgive me, vicar, but aren't the clergy supposed to represent God?".
Good fun.
If the last time I was in a CoE church is anything to go by then - to reflect the congregation - the majority of vicars will need to be well past retirement age too!
Racists have a long history of denying being racists.
Are you saying Prince William is a racist? Or just implying it?
I'm just reminded of that golden rule from Bismarck Yes Minister.
Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.
No, you are trying to hide behind being trite. This time it won't wash.
I'll ask again. Are you saying Prince William is a racist? Or just implying it?
I wouldn't know if he's a racist or not.
However the original allegation was about the wider royal family.
Which, sadly, does has a history of racism.
But specifically, William?
That history - in recent years? Decades?
The past few centuries don't look great, but hey, back then they were amongst the crowned heads of Europe - who did whatever they wanted. As Randy Newman nailed here:
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
Isn't today the day we expect a serious surge in UK vax, or it the weekend, or next Monday?
The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
So far our performance this month has been a bit disappointing. Hopefully the second half will be better. My wife got her letter today because she is much, much older than me (well, 1 year) but at 59 I have still got nothing. It's frustrating.
She looks much younger of course, and far more attractive. *looks around nervously*
REPOST
On the 3rd of March the following letter was sent out -
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
The reporting we get is 2 days behind.
So the surge in vaccine availability will probably be reported on the 13th - 2 days from now.....
BoZo got Brexit done postponed Brexit for another year because it's too hard...
Brexit's done you idiot.
Brexit includes deciding for ourselves what paperwork we want filling in, and which paperwork is not a priority.
That you want us to be doing red tape just because the EU does red tape shows you haven't wrapped your head around what Brexit means yet. Brexit means we decide. Not the EU, not anyone else. If we don't want red tape then so be it, that's our choice.
I think Scott has malfunctioned again today. The 2016 model needs rebooting.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Its true that the Yorkshire ripper enquiry was very poor. Sutcliffe was interviewed on multiple occasions. Its also true that he would have been caught far faster today as we have so much better resources (cross linked reports on the computer, DNA, CCTV everywhere, ANPR). Its easy to criticise the investigation, but policing was different then too.
So were attitudes towards certain types of women. Shamefully so.
The question is do we accept responsibility for what we've done, but not for who we are ?
That's a good way of putting it. But this doesn't mean that arguing a probable link between the widespread objectification of women in society and the level of violent crime against them is tantamount to "blaming all men for crimes against women". Or (even more absurdly) that when you make such an argument you are in some way seeking to blame the specific crime that's currently in the news on anyone but the perpetrator.
Are you saying you are in favour of Express style headlines then?
I've said I'm against them. Where do you stand? Are you pro Express and pro Mail blaming the perpetrators group rather than the perpetrator?
That's a lot of questions, Philip. But no, you coot! I posted that to demonstrate how the Press demonize Muslims. And to say that if they were to do that with Men (in general) I'd be none too impressed.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
More at risk of what, is the question.
Well the topic today is murder sadly.
I believe 19/22 murder victims in the Capital so far this year are male. I don't know if that includes this girl or not, so it might be 19/23 now sadly. So men are 5-6 more likely to be murdered than women are.
It is an absolute tragedy and horrible that this woman has been murdered. But so too is every other murder victim.
Is it really about her murder though Philip?
Or is it about the context of a woman that should have been safe on her way home, and the response from some parts of the press or twittersphere? Is a woman or man more likely to be murdered walking home, doing absolutely nothing to invite trouble?
Well what are the facts?
Everybody should be safe on their way home. From the sound of it she is tragically the third or fourth woman to have been murdered in the capital so far this year. Which is three or four women too many.
But from the sound of it too nineteen men have been murdered in the capital so far this year. Which is nineteen men too many.
Unless you know otherwise or have reason to think the nineteen men 'had it coming' for some reason or other it sounds like men are more at risk than women are.
@pulpstar that Jenny Jones tweet re 6pm male curfew is bonkers.
I’m a borderline green voter here in the midlands. Thankfully up here the greens are all a bit more sane, but I’ll certainly be remembering that tweet next time I’m asked to vote.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Its true that the Yorkshire ripper enquiry was very poor. Sutcliffe was interviewed on multiple occasions. Its also true that he would have been caught far faster today as we have so much better resources (cross linked reports on the computer, DNA, CCTV everywhere, ANPR). Its easy to criticise the investigation, but policing was different then too.
So were attitudes towards certain types of women. Shamefully so.
At Sutcliffe's trial, prosecutor Sir Michael Havers, then attorney general, said: "Some were prostitutes but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women."
I am astonished that that could be said in my lifetime.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
Men are definitely more at risk of being on the receiving end of violence, as the Criminologist who came on R4 this morning pointed out.
I don’t know how the numbers work out for sexual assault though.
Men are also certainly MUCH more at risk of committing violent & sexual assault, rape and murder. Poor us!
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
They are all over my part of London, as well. Many seem utterly pointless and counter-productive, all they have done is forced cars to take circuitous routes by new andcongested rat runs, slowing down the traffic overall and making life miserable for anyone near the new work-around routes.
Khan fucks up basically anything he touches, and is largely invisible. And he will cruise to the easiest of victories. Sigh
OhWhyohWhy isn't there a better tory candidate? cry people who would never vote for any tory in a month of Sundays.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
You would just build massive resentment. You would see no change - not positive at least.
Try coming up with ways to level the playing field. Give all women that want one a rape alarm - with inbuilt GPS location for when it goes off. Give all women that want them self-defence classes. Allow all women to carry a taser. Men will just have to accept that if they overstep the mark, they are going to get tasered in the bollocks.
Giving women rape alarms, tasers and self-defence classes is hardly levelling the playing field, is it? Creating a different class of citizen.
No doubt if your dystopian vision were to happen we'd soon be hearing "well, she should have had her taser on her".
As a solution to the problem, your proposals are among the worst I've encountered.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Its true that the Yorkshire ripper enquiry was very poor. Sutcliffe was interviewed on multiple occasions. Its also true that he would have been caught far faster today as we have so much better resources (cross linked reports on the computer, DNA, CCTV everywhere, ANPR). Its easy to criticise the investigation, but policing was different then too.
My boss at the time was from Sunderland and had been in Leeds - interviewed by the police. The nastiest part was when the police suggested that some of the victims were "innocent" i.e. not sex workers. I was in Newcastle at the time but vividly remember the fear. One thing we kept quiet was Sutcliffe used a washing powder we sold to get his clothes clean....
The question is do we accept responsibility for what we've done, but not for who we are ?
That's a good way of putting it. But this doesn't mean that arguing a probable link between the widespread objectification of women in society and the level of violent crime against them is tantamount to "blaming all men for crimes against women". Or (even more absurdly) that when you make such an argument you are in some way seeking to blame the specific crime that's currently in the news on anyone but the perpetrator.
Are you saying you are in favour of Express style headlines then?
I've said I'm against them. Where do you stand? Are you pro Express and pro Mail blaming the perpetrators group rather than the perpetrator?
That's a lot of questions, Philip. But no, you coot! I posted that to demonstrate how the Press demonize Muslims. And to say that if they were to do that with Men (in general) I'd be none too impressed.
So if you'd be none too impressed why should I delete what I wrote? I was right wasn't I? Wrong is wrong.
I am reading from the independence polls that people's views on the SNP are directly affecting their opinions on independence. I don't subscribe to the notion that independence means a 1,000-year SNP rule, but it is certainly interesting.
What we haven't seen as yet is evidence that there is much of a slide for them in the Holyood Elections which are just weeks away now.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
More at risk of what, is the question.
Well the topic today is murder sadly.
I believe 19/22 murder victims in the Capital so far this year are male. I don't know if that includes this girl or not, so it might be 19/23 now sadly. So men are 5-6 more likely to be murdered than women are.
It is an absolute tragedy and horrible that this woman has been murdered. But so too is every other murder victim.
The thing that occurs to me sadly is this - huge media about the case of a pretty blond white woman. Would it be the same if she was a person of colour? Or as Philip says - what about the 21 other murder victims in the capital? Where is the reporting for them? Its a sad fact that some crimes make more news than others.
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
They are all over my part of London, as well. Many seem utterly pointless and counter-productive, all they have done is forced cars to take circuitous routes by new andcongested rat runs, slowing down the traffic overall and making life miserable for anyone near the new work-around routes.
Khan fucks up basically anything he touches, and is largely invisible. And he will cruise to the easiest of victories. Sigh
We don't know the details of the Everard case - how the police officer allegedly abducted her. It doesn't sound like it is a "normal" abduction / rape / murder case because of this added factor.
I fear that this will allow some men to dismiss it as a one-off. The method of the abduction / rape / murder may be a little unusual but the predilection of a small number of men to prey on women for the purposes of abduction / rape / murder is not.
What can I as a man with a wife and a daughter do about it? I can Speak Out. Nobody is saying "all men are rapists" because we aren't. But go and ask the women in your lives today if they have experienced fear when alone that the man following them, or the figure in the shadows, or the guys "having fun" by staring or making suggesting comments may be the one who preys on them. ALL the women I know have had this. All of them.
So yes, the onus is on the majority of men to stand up for and speak out for the women in their lives. So that the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority stop. So that the tiny tiny minority of lunatics who want to abduct / rape / murder for sport have nowhere to hide.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
A counter-argument:
When Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair in the run up to the Brexit vote, do you think his choice of victim was made at random? Of course not: he had been surrounded by increasingly vicious rhetoric that painted Remain MPs as traitors & fifth columnists. Those who spent their time online thundering on about traitorous Remainers clearly had no intention of inciting murder, yet when those words fell on susceptible ears we all know the result.
In a similar fashion, as RochdaleP says: the the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority provide cover for those who are at risk of being tipped over the edge onto outright violence towards women. When those individuals find themselves surrounded by men who do those things, the message they hear repeated over and over again is that women are things, objects to be exploited. This is why it’s everybody’s responsibility to push back on that kind behaviour - not just because it’s unpleasant for the targets in and of itself, but also because it is the misogynist swamp in which the violent sociopaths swim - it’s the environment that tells them that their behaviour is OK, even approved of.
Drain the swamp.
No, I don't think Jo Cox was killed at random. She was assassinated. And you may have a point about the circumstances in which it happened.
We don't know the details of what's gone on in the current case, but it's possible (likely?) that this young woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time (though the killer may have identified her as a target before the night in question).
What makes some men behave like this? I don't know, but I'm not sure attributing it to catcalling is particularly helpful.
This man was a 49 year old officer in the MET. During his career, he will have been bathed and basted in PC ideology, and will be highly fluent in woke. The suggestion that in order not to go around abducting people the rest of society needs the same is inapposite to say the least.
You are both (wilfully?) misunderstanding the point I was making.
Nobody is attributing a murder directly to catcalling. What I (and others) are saying is that the smorgasbord of misogynistic behaviours that many men indulge in is creating the psychological space for some men to think that their more extreme behaviour towards women is OK, even approved of by other men. After all, the thinking goes, if they didn’t approve of it, why didn’t they say anything when I said those things about women down the pub?
Is it really "woke" to suggest that the endless low-grade sexual harrassment of women out on the street needs to stop? I don’t think it’s woke: I think it’s basic common decency. Something that, regardless of our political stance, we surely ought to be able to agree on.
What you are referring to isn't "woke" it is "sexism".
Sexism needs to stop. Ascribing sexism to all men is . . . sexist. Sexism belongs to the individuals who engage in it, not men.
Of course if someone is "awake" to social injustice then they should be aware of sexism.
Absolutely and they should not engage in sexism by making sweeping blanket statements about either men or women. To do so is sexist.
Something to think about: it is clearly the case that not all men are responsible for the sexual harassment that many women experience, yet for most of the women in question it is nevertheless always men doing it.
From their point of view, it looks an awful lot like men are the problem. Show a little empathy before you wade in with your "notallmen" sledgehammer?
Sorry but no. I do have empathy and I call out the sexists, but by moving away from calling out sexism and going to calling out everyone instead moves the onus away from the sexists who are the problem.
I would do the same with any group. If someone used a terrorist attack to attack all Muslims I'd view that as inappropriate - wouldn't you?
Call out sexists yes. Blame groups for the actions of individuals? No that is "-ism" and "-ism" is wrong.
I agree - the problem is that far too many men do not call out sexists or misogynists.
And do you think law-abiding Muslims do enough to counter Islamic terrorism?
Possibly the most absurd piece of whataboutery I have ever read.
No, it is about consistency.
Blaming law abiding Muslims for Islamic terrorism is racism. Blaming law abiding men for lone murderers is sexism.
Its worth noting the other person arrested in this case is a woman anyway. One man and one woman have been arrested. But yes, its all men's fault. 🙄
Perhaps the most asinine comment you have ever clicked "post" on. Makes the case for a "late delete" option utterly compelling.
Still, if the mainstream media coverage of "Men" ever gets like this -
Maybe you should have stopped and thought for a second.
I have a long standing opinion that the way the Express and Mail etc report is a bad thing.
So you're using what I use bad as an analogy for what I call bad . . . just what point did you think I was making? Just what point did you think you were making?
The Express blaming all Muslims for terror is bad. Idiots on Twitter blaming all men for murders is bad.
Blame for violence belongs with the individual. I call out the Express and idiots on Twitter and anyone else that engages in such discriminatory behaviour equally - do you? Or perhaps you should "late delete" or better yet "apologise" for such a silly post?
Yes, blaming all for some is a bad thing. My post was making a different point.
If there's any truth at all to this then why haven't we heard about it over here, where we've probably used more of the stuff that the whole of the rest of Europe put together? It's hard not to suspect that the consequences of the Macron and Handelstwatt episodes aren't manifesting again here.
Apparently linked to a single batch from the Belgian subcontractor fucking up the production process under pressure from the client. Despite what they might think in the EU it hasn't effected us because we don't get AZ doses from that Belgian production.
What's worrying is how these doses made it through manufacturer and regulatory verification. We have a really, really strict process of double checking everything, the MHRA takes samples from each batch to test for impurities and ensuring they are properly sterile. I'd be shocked if European national regulators don't also do this.
they do - this is ridiculous and I am embarrassed by the Danish government's decision - as well as meaning I can't even begin to think of being vaccinated before August now. However the govenrment broke the law by destroying all the mink because of a theoretical risk of a variant that theoretically could have been more contagious - so there is a history of panicked action being taken - in other ways the government here have done very well but this is mad.
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Bloody good documentary. The assumptions made about women were horrific and the preconceptions which the police had severely stymied their investigation. It was, despite all the man hours devoted to it, pure luck that the Ripper was caught. And it should not have been.
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Point of order: are women "much more likely to be at risk"?
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
More at risk of what, is the question.
Well the topic today is murder sadly.
I believe 19/22 murder victims in the Capital so far this year are male. I don't know if that includes this girl or not, so it might be 19/23 now sadly. So men are 5-6 more likely to be murdered than women are.
It is an absolute tragedy and horrible that this woman has been murdered. But so too is every other murder victim.
The thing that occurs to me sadly is this - huge media about the case of a pretty blond white woman. Would it be the same if she was a person of colour? Or as Philip says - what about the 21 other murder victims in the capital? Where is the reporting for them? Its a sad fact that some crimes make more news than others.
& today a few blood clots will make more news than thousands of deaths.
I'm assuming it's a route that people are forced down because of Covid closures etc. Seems to be a particular bugbear for some folk, that Brexity vicar who's always on the radio was comparing them to the Berlin Wall recently.
Do you mean Giles Fraser, who writes for Unherd?
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of waking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
Dunno if at some point he had a different EU tune but he certainly enthusiastically supported Brexit at the time of the referendum, and since afaik. I usually heard him on The Moral Maze but it's become one of my least favourite programmes so don't know if he's still a regular.
They are all over my part of London, as well. Many seem utterly pointless and counter-productive, all they have done is forced cars to take circuitous routes by new andcongested rat runs, slowing down the traffic overall and making life miserable for anyone near the new work-around routes.
Khan fucks up basically anything he touches, and is largely invisible. And he will cruise to the easiest of victories. Sigh
OhWhyohWhy isn't there a better tory candidate? cry people who would never vote for any tory in a month of Sundays.
For better/more interesting betting opportunities? Laying Rose is fine, but it's not very exciting, is it?
Mr. Seal, could be wrong but I believe vaccines to the Republic of Ireland was raised a couple of months ago and the Irish indicated they didn't want/need it.
That might have been during the lunatic "Astrazeneca is poison" phase, though.
That is also my recollection, although I don't think it had anything to do with the 'AZ is poison' narrative - more to do with EU solidarity I expect.
If the position has shifted and there's any truth to the suggestion that the Irish Government has raised the subject then it's probably out of desperation. If it comes to pass that Dublin is still locked down when Belfast is partying like it's 1999 then this won't be a good look for them.
I read the Irish press fairly often, and yes it appears the Irish government was at first very sanguine, and refused any help from the UK, if indeed any was offered - they were confident the EU would come through. Now that their roll out is still plodding along they HAVE made a request, but been politely rebuffed by London.
At least one in two Irish columnists seek to blame this on the evil Brits rather than Brussels. Their persistent Anglophobia is extraordinary. They've been a free country for a century. They are now wealthy. Yet still there is this weird mix of neediness/resentment aimed at the UK, especially England.
Like a very reasonable adult, who suddenly resorts to being a petulant whiny I-HATE-YOU adolescent when in the company of his parents.
To be fair, the one in two Irish journalists who AREN'T like this are often rather good, and offer an interesting, neutral but well-informed foreign perspective on the UK, and it is of course possible that British journalists are deficient in the opposite way about Ireland: condescending, arrogant, whatever
I saw a documentary about the Yorkshire Ripper and the staggeringly incompetent police operation to catch him on Netflix recently. The same issue arose there. The police were suggesting women should not go out beyond dark in certain areas and women's groups were arguing that this was punishing the victims and that a curfew on men was more appropriate.
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
Don't quite get your last sentence. Everyone bar the perpetrator(s) of this crime is innocent of it - and of those only one is the victim.
You are assuming that there is 1 victim which I very much hope will be the case here. But I also accept that some men have very poor attitudes to women and can normalise an abusive relationship with their partners (frequently serial) and violence to women in general. The link between that and the attitude of your genuine psychopath may be weak or even non existent but I think a society where sexual violence is fairly pervasive (if only on the internet) must increase the risk.
Even then, however, I do not believe that large numbers of men create such an atmosphere or environment. It is a tiny minority. Most of us are pretty civilised.
Comments
So, it is not a new thought. I don't think that it is a good one though. 99.9% of men are also innocent victims in this.
https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/1369968498269696000?s=20
What about you?
Anyway, the headlines would suggest restricting the curfew to politicians and footballers cures much of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_closed_doors_(sport)#Turkish_football_in_2011–12
He's changed his tune a bit if he has gone all Brexity - he was the Canon at St Paul's Cathedral who came out in support of the Happy Campers of Occupy St Pauls 10 years ago. At the same time he was Chaplain to a Financially-based City Livery Company of some sort, but no one noticed.
As far as I can see, in the context of walking streets it is a Googlewhack-1 ie no results at all.
My best guess is a central reservation for a crossing on a busy road.
Keeping the accusation vague, in order to smear the maximum number of people is both cowardly and malicious.
Most murder victims are men. Murder is horrid and evil and all murder should be fought not just the murder of pretty girls.
It is not your party, in your own words you are merely a centre right liberal leaning swing voter not a Tory
While 99% of men may also be innocent victims, it's a sad fact that women are much more likely to be at risk and men are much more likely to be the perpetrators. So if you wanted to use curfews imposing them on those most likely to be perpetrators makes some sort of sense. (Though I am not a fan of curfews or collective punishments generally.)
However I am also not a fan of women being more at risk of attack and also of having to bear the burden of minimising that risk by limiting our lives. Why should we be victimised twice? Let men understand what it means to have your life curbed, innocent as you may be, by the actions of others. We might see some change then .
Take Back ControlFuck it
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1370002916371795968
Spoiler: no NI tunnel. Instead he recommends better GB/NI air links as part of a better and broader UK "intermodal" transport network.
However the original allegation was about the wider royal family.
Which, sadly, does has a history of racism.
But if my party leaves me I will vote for another party. I support my party as the best way of getting my views put forward, I don't change my views to suit my party.
At least we know at elections between the two of us the party is best advised to take your vote for granted but to ensure it keeps mine.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
https://www.hotpress.com/culture/did-a-coronavirus-kill-charles-stewart-parnell-22821931
If we never want to implement these checks, that's a choice we can make too.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1369974298039963648
Numbers will be interesting today as it was expected from yesterday onwards Britain would be ramping up supply. Would hope for some 600k upward days later this week if that's the case.
I absolutely agree that women should not be restricted in their lives and it is society's duty to ensure that does not happen by providing adequate protection. Unlike some I do not think the idea is "batshit crazy" and I can see the logic of it to some degree but I do fear that it perpetuates a myth that a significant number of men are dangerous.
There will only be a "surplus" of jabs when everyone in our country has been vaccinated. Twice.
got Brexit donepostponed Brexit for another year because it's too hard...The government has moved the goalposts on this, a few times
I thought men were twice as likely to be at risk of being murdered than women were?
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1370005701058322437
I'm a total bender. Am I allowed out after 6pm if I promise always to wear my rainbow flag badge?
Try coming up with ways to level the playing field. Give all women that want one a rape alarm - with inbuilt GPS location for when it goes off. Give all women that want them self-defence classes. Allow all women to carry a taser. Men will just have to accept that if they overstep the mark, they are going to get tasered in the bollocks.
https://twitter.com/giles_fraser/status/1357619657763618816?s=20
It was confirmed last night they're in the warehouse now, so in next few days they'll be distributed to channels, then in arms, then reported in daily figures but the figures may change a week from now.
I too believe that the clergy of the Church of England should reflect the sort of people who sit in our pews. It must do so in terms of gender, ethnicity and sexuality. Also, unless you believe that the clergy are somehow more morally enlightened than the laity — and I don’t — then it needs better to reflect their politics as well.
First comment was, summarised: "Forgive me, vicar, but aren't the clergy supposed to represent God?".
Good fun.
Brexit includes deciding for ourselves what paperwork we want filling in, and which paperwork is not a priority.
That you want us to be doing red tape just because the EU does red tape shows you haven't wrapped your head around what Brexit means yet. Brexit means we decide. Not the EU, not anyone else. If we don't want red tape then so be it, that's our choice.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1370004731570053122
If there's any truth at all to this then why haven't we heard about it over here, where we've probably used more of the stuff that the whole of the rest of Europe put together? It's hard not to suspect that the consequences of the Macron and Handelstwatt episodes aren't manifesting again here.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2021/03/C1165-COVID-19-vaccination-deployment-next-steps-and-plans-for-weeks-of-8-and-15-March.pdf
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
The reporting we get is 2 days behind.
So the surge in vaccine availability will be reported on the 13th - 2 days from now.....
Khan fucks up basically anything he touches, and is largely invisible. And he will cruise to the easiest of victories. Sigh
Me too with The Moral Maze. It's not really what you want to be nodding off to on a Saturday night.
That might have been during the lunatic "Astrazeneca is poison" phase, though.
Take Back Controlhttps://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1370006566351560707
Meghan is reporting Harry's reporting of a conversation Harry had with an unnamed Royal (when Meghan was not there).
The onus seems to me to be clearly on HARRY to clarify what was said, who said it and in what context.
It also seems to me unwise of Meghan to make this allegation, no matter how strongly she feels.
The matter should have been raised by HARRY, as he was the one present when the contested remarks were made.
This was an application under the Forced Marriage etc. (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011 which allowed an Indian girl who was being coerced into an arranged marriage by her family to obtain a protection order which made it illegal for her family to contact her or seek to ascertain her whereabouts.
I must confess I have never come across such an order before. It will be interesting to see if it is actually effective. On the Sheriff's description it appears that the mother was much more of an issue than the father in that particular case.
I believe 19/22 murder victims in the Capital so far this year are male. I don't know if that includes this girl or not, so it might be 19/23 now sadly. So men are 5-6 more likely to be murdered than women are.
It is an absolute tragedy and horrible that this woman has been murdered. But so too is every other murder victim.
I don’t know how the numbers work out for sexual assault though.
We'll have to wait and see what happens, but in the face of known benefits from taking the vaccine against unsubstantiated risks, it would seem prudent to continue the programme while investigating, rather than halt it. Suspension, unless they're supplied with Pfizer/other vaccines quicker than they can get them into arms so there's no decrease in vaccination rates, will definitely cost lives.
What's worrying is how these doses made it through manufacturer and regulatory verification. We have a really, really strict process of double checking everything, the MHRA takes samples from each batch to test for impurities and ensuring they are properly sterile. I'd be shocked if European national regulators don't also do this.
If the position has shifted and there's any truth to the suggestion that the Irish Government has raised the subject then it's probably out of desperation. If it comes to pass that Dublin is still locked down when Belfast is partying like it's 1999 then this won't be a good look for them.
Or is it about the context of a woman that should have been safe on her way home, and the response from some parts of the press or twittersphere? Is a woman or man more likely to be murdered walking home, doing absolutely nothing to invite trouble?
She looks much younger of course, and far more attractive. *looks around nervously*
That history - in recent years? Decades?
The past few centuries don't look great, but hey, back then they were amongst the crowned heads of Europe - who did whatever they wanted. As Randy Newman nailed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxNQxu7PWKM&ab_channel=RandyNewman-Topic
Bit weird they weren't interested earlier, but there we are.
On the 3rd of March the following letter was sent out -
https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2021/03/C1165-COVID-19-vaccination-deployment-next-steps-and-plans-for-weeks-of-8-and-15-March.pdf
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
The reporting we get is 2 days behind.
So the surge in vaccine availability will probably be reported on the 13th - 2 days from now.....
I think Scott has malfunctioned again today. The 2016 model needs rebooting.
Everybody should be safe on their way home. From the sound of it she is tragically the third or fourth woman to have been murdered in the capital so far this year. Which is three or four women too many.
But from the sound of it too nineteen men have been murdered in the capital so far this year. Which is nineteen men too many.
Unless you know otherwise or have reason to think the nineteen men 'had it coming' for some reason or other it sounds like men are more at risk than women are.
Everybody should feel safe.
I’m a borderline green voter here in the midlands. Thankfully up here the greens are all a bit more sane, but I’ll certainly be remembering that tweet next time I’m asked to vote.
I am astonished that that could be said in my lifetime.
No doubt if your dystopian vision were to happen we'd soon be hearing "well, she should have had her taser on her".
As a solution to the problem, your proposals are among the worst I've encountered.
https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1369960885792440321
Yet more evidence of how crooked it all was.
https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/03/11/what-the-scottish-government-knew-and-when-they-knew-it/
OR IS IT?!
At least one in two Irish columnists seek to blame this on the evil Brits rather than Brussels. Their persistent Anglophobia is extraordinary. They've been a free country for a century. They are now wealthy. Yet still there is this weird mix of neediness/resentment aimed at the UK, especially England.
Like a very reasonable adult, who suddenly resorts to being a petulant whiny I-HATE-YOU adolescent when in the company of his parents.
To be fair, the one in two Irish journalists who AREN'T like this are often rather good, and offer an interesting, neutral but well-informed foreign perspective on the UK, and it is of course possible that British journalists are deficient in the opposite way about Ireland: condescending, arrogant, whatever
Even then, however, I do not believe that large numbers of men create such an atmosphere or environment. It is a tiny minority. Most of us are pretty civilised.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1370011931709423621?s=20