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?
I totally agree that all people, especially women, deserve to feel safe when they walk home.
These discussions do slightly remind me of discussions surrounding low level crime and anti-social behaviour in previous years, in particular, those surrounding 'chavs' behaving anti-socially and making people feel intimidated. I'm pretty sure that those complaining at the time were told in no uncertain terms that crime was falling with a side-helping of 'try not to be so bigoted'.
I was beaten up by a gang of hoodies when I was at University in Greater London. I didn't do anything to provoke it, but I do take responsibility for cutting through a path at night rather than taking the longer route through the high street, which even as a 6ft 19 year old was stupid. The attack was one of a number that night - it was a revenge attack provoked by some former students returning and (I think) doing the same to a number of hoodies (and so it went on).
What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds.
Though how we prevent a police officer (if that is what has happened) from doing this is anybody's guess. Just hope it's an aberration.
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.
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.
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.
Some things don't change. I was just reading about one of Cicero's cases, where his client was accused (among other things) of sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl. He had the jury laughing uproarariously when he pointed out that the girl in question was an actress - of course she was asking for it! In fact, it was a rotten smear even to mention the issue.
Given the attitudes towards child abuse that were (and probably still are) widespread in my lifetime, i'm not in the least bit surprised by his comment.
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.
Utterly disgraceful.
Yep. I hope such comments would not be thought now, let alone spoken. It was nearly 40 years ago.
"Trans-row Plaid Cymru politician closes Twitter account
A politician has apologised to the trans community for causing "pain and hurt" over her actions on social media. Plaid Cymru Senedd member Helen Mary Jones has closed her personal Twitter account after admitting she followed others that shared transphobic content.
The Mid and West Wales MS has promised to undergo awareness training."
Why on earth does Dave think any other country should jump to the EUs command? The EU was late to the party which means it's orders were later than other countries and any early delivery is down to their good will.
And given the EU's / Italy's treatment of Australia I cannot see many none EU countries prioritising delivery to the EU.
Wales is almost at 50 jabs per 100 people over 18. Older population than anywhere else I think so the rest of the UK should catch up a bit as we move down the age groups.
Meanwhile, the continental panic attack over AZ and blood clots gathers pace...
So don't use the vaccine that may have a tiny chance of causing a blood clot, and instead be more exposed to a disease where one of the symptoms is blood clots.
Does Johnson & Johnson form any part of the UK's plans ?
Yes, 30m expected with April delivery. However, that idiot Dave doesn't know what he's talking about J&J have said it's a global shortage and America is also going to get reductions in the expected April delivery.
A case in point. Self proclaimed lefty wonders why tory candidate isn't better.
What, so that you can avowedly not vote for that person even more?
Khan's hegemony is your fault matey. Your politics got you here, not the weakness of the tory candidate. Other examples include Sunder Katwala and Anne McElvoy.
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:
Recent years, such as Prince Philip's slitty eyed comment or his put in by an Indian comment.
Can you tell me what sanction his wife gave to these outbursts of racism?
Or is Boris Johnson right when he said
“It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.”
The UK’s medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA) has stressed that it was not confirmed that the reported blood clot in Denmark was caused by the vaccine, adding that the Danish suspension was precautionary.
Phil Bryan, MHRA vaccines safety lead, said more than 11 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine had been administered across the UK and that reports of blood clots were not greater than would have occurred naturally.
"Blood clots can occur naturally and are not uncommon... We are keeping this issue under close review but available evidence does not confirm that the vaccine is the cause. People should still go and get their Covid-19 vaccine when asked to do so."
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.....
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.
Some things don't change. I was just reading about one of Cicero's cases, where his client was accused (among other things) of sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl. He had the jury laughing uproarariously when he pointed out that the girl in question was an actress - of course she was asking for it! In fact, it was a rotten smear even to mention the issue.
Given the attitudes towards child abuse that were (and probably still are) widespread in my lifetime, i'm not in the least bit surprised by his comment.
The age of consent in England under common law was 12, in 1875 it was raised to 13 and in 1885 to 16.
The law and practice of the late Roman republic (especially with regard to female slaves) beggars belief. Cicero, in his own life and attitude, was among the most civilised and humane of a pretty dodgy lot.
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?
He's certainly been on a journey .
On the closed street - he got handed his Rs in the comments quire thoroughly.
So he's saying the EU are now angry at Johnson & Johnson & Johnson?
Should Ulrika be worried?
Well, on the one hand she's a 'Jonsson', so a little bit different; but on the other, she's a Swedish-British enterprise, just like the hated AstraZeneca...
I'd be on the lookout for petulant tweets from senior EU bureaucrats if I were her.
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:
Recent years, such as Prince Philip's slitty eyed comment or his put in by an Indian comment.
Can you tell me what sanction his wife gave to these outbursts of racism?
Or is Boris Johnson right when he said
“It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.”
Do you have the context of the Boris Johnson comment? Or are you continuing to be wilfully stupid as you dig your hole over this?
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.
Some things don't change. I was just reading about one of Cicero's cases, where his client was accused (among other things) of sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl. He had the jury laughing uproarariously when he pointed out that the girl in question was an actress - of course she was asking for it! In fact, it was a rotten smear even to mention the issue.
Given the attitudes towards child abuse that were (and probably still are) widespread in my lifetime, i'm not in the least bit surprised by his comment.
Following on from my last comment, my mother has told me some ghastly stories from 1950's Ireland, of young women killing themselves after being raped and made pregnant by fathers, brothers etc., well knowing they would get the blame for "leading them on."
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.
So share your proposals with the class. You know, the ones that level the playing field.
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?
I totally agree that all people, especially women, deserve to feel safe when they walk home.
These discussions do slightly remind me of discussions surrounding low level crime and anti-social behaviour in previous years, in particular, those surrounding 'chavs' behaving anti-socially and making people feel intimidated. I'm pretty sure that those complaining at the time were told in no uncertain terms that crime was falling with a side-helping of 'try not to be so bigoted'.
I was beaten up by a gang of hoodies when I was at University in Greater London. I didn't do anything to provoke it, but I do take responsibility for cutting through a path at night rather than taking the longer route through the high street, which even as a 6ft 19 year old was stupid. The attack was one of a number that night - it was a revenge attack provoked by some former students returning and (I think) doing the same to a number of hoodies (and so it went on).
What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds.
Though how we prevent a police officer (if that is what has happened) from doing this is anybody's guess. Just hope it's an aberration.
The sentiment behind this tweet is the sort of nonsense foretold by Demolition Man.
So he's saying the EU are now angry at Johnson & Johnson & Johnson?
Probably not - they've had delays from Pfizer, but haven't got angry at them......they think they can pick on AZ as it's Anglo-Swedish but won't take on a US company - that's making a substantial profit on each dose they sell, unlike AZ! Truly "no good deed goes unpunished".....
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.
You didn't. You knocked out a little piece that floated free of boring little constraints such as relevance to what you were replying to. It was quite something to see. People can check the exchange and confirm. It reminded me of that old Nimble advert -
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:
Recent years, such as Prince Philip's slitty eyed comment or his put in by an Indian comment.
Can you tell me what sanction his wife gave to these outbursts of racism?
Or is Boris Johnson right when he said
“It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.”
Do you have the context of the Boris Johnson comment? Or are you continuing to be wilfully stupid as you dig your hole over this?
Was it the context of him thinking up the words, writing them down, sending them in as copy to the Telegraph and then feeling the need to apologise for them six years later?
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?
I totally agree that all people, especially women, deserve to feel safe when they walk home.
These discussions do slightly remind me of discussions surrounding low level crime and anti-social behaviour in previous years, in particular, those surrounding 'chavs' behaving anti-socially and making people feel intimidated. I'm pretty sure that those complaining at the time were told in no uncertain terms that crime was falling with a side-helping of 'try not to be so bigoted'.
I was beaten up by a gang of hoodies when I was at University in Greater London. I didn't do anything to provoke it, but I do take responsibility for cutting through a path at night rather than taking the longer route through the high street, which even as a 6ft 19 year old was stupid. The attack was one of a number that night - it was a revenge attack provoked by some former students returning and (I think) doing the same to a number of hoodies (and so it went on).
What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds.
Though how we prevent a police officer (if that is what has happened) from doing this is anybody's guess. Just hope it's an aberration.
"What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds."
Sounds like a very right-wing approach to law and order.
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:
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?
I totally agree that all people, especially women, deserve to feel safe when they walk home.
These discussions do slightly remind me of discussions surrounding low level crime and anti-social behaviour in previous years, in particular, those surrounding 'chavs' behaving anti-socially and making people feel intimidated. I'm pretty sure that those complaining at the time were told in no uncertain terms that crime was falling with a side-helping of 'try not to be so bigoted'.
I was beaten up by a gang of hoodies when I was at University in Greater London. I didn't do anything to provoke it, but I do take responsibility for cutting through a path at night rather than taking the longer route through the high street, which even as a 6ft 19 year old was stupid. The attack was one of a number that night - it was a revenge attack provoked by some former students returning and (I think) doing the same to a number of hoodies (and so it went on).
What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds.
Though how we prevent a police officer (if that is what has happened) from doing this is anybody's guess. Just hope it's an aberration.
The sentiment behind this tweet is the sort of nonsense foretold by Demolition Man.
We just had to get the authoritarian hyper-wokeness and not the three sea-shells, didn't we? Dammit.
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.
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.
Some things don't change. I was just reading about one of Cicero's cases, where his client was accused (among other things) of sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl. He had the jury laughing uproarariously when he pointed out that the girl in question was an actress - of course she was asking for it! In fact, it was a rotten smear even to mention the issue.
Given the attitudes towards child abuse that were (and probably still are) widespread in my lifetime, i'm not in the least bit surprised by his comment.
The age of consent in England under common law was 12, in 1875 it was raised to 13 and in 1885 to 16.
The law and practice of the late Roman republic (especially with regard to female slaves) beggars belief. Cicero, in his own life and attitude, was among the most civilised and humane of a pretty dodgy lot.
He was.
The woman in question was not a slave, but as an actress, the general assumption was that she was a whore, and therefore legally incapable of being raped.
Sean Gabb delivered a very good lecture on Roman slavery on Youtube. He showed one of these saucy Victorian paintings of a young naked woman being auctioned off at a slave market. He pointed out that what is actually being shown is completely horrific - a group of men bidding for the right to rape a woman (it could just as easily have been a young man, for that matter).
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:
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.
You didn't. You knocked out a little piece that floated free of boring little constraints such as relevance to what you were replying to. It was quite something to see. People can check the exchange and confirm. It reminded me of that old Nimble advert -
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.
If you did an anonymous opinion poll today and asked people whether they thought being a prostitute was a respectable thing to do/be, what would the results be? Hopefully people have different attitudes today. Maybe that word is not acceptable today in itself.
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
I'm about to bugger off into a meeting for the rest of the afternoon but at one point crime had fallen when compared with like for like offences.
The increases in crimes are for new types of crime, a lot relating to technology, such as mobile phone thefts and scamming have increased as the technology has proliferated.
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
Depends where you are and who you are. If you're a septuagenarian widow inhabiting a village in Suffolk you're highly unlikely to become a victim of anything. For a 19 year old man in one of the grottier parts of Haringey, life mightn't be quite so rosy.
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
My experience at that time was that I informed the University authorities what had happened. They seemed resigned rather than particularly exercised. I was told that they would pass it on to the police - either they did not, or the police did not see fit to contact me about it. Consequently it never became a crime statistic, though the assault was quite vicious, face was a mess.
I never really think about it and I don't have any feelings toward those who did it. I'm a different and much happier person now than I was then.
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
Depends where you are and who you are. If you're a septuagenarian widow inhabiting a village in Suffolk you're highly unlikely to become a victim of anything. For a 19 year old man in one of the grottier parts of Haringey, life mightn't be quite so rosy.
Crime that gets into the courts is only a fraction of what actually takes place. I'm pretty sure all of us have been victims of crimes that we have various reasons not to want to see come to court.
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
I'm about to bugger off into a meeting for the rest of the afternoon but at one point crime had fallen when compared with like for like offences.
The increases in crimes are for new types of crime, a lot relating to technology, such as mobile phone thefts and scamming have increased as the technology has proliferated.
But how much of that is not bothering to report it anymore. In the early nineties I had my car broken into. The response of the police basically boiled down to "Well what do you expect us to do about it". Why therefore would I waste my time again?
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'll never forget that the police chief of Greater Manchester in the 1980s said of the people with HIV/AIDS.
Anderton's said that homosexuals, drug addicts, and prostitutes who had HIV/AIDS were "swirling in a human cesspit of their own making"
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.....
LOL
Right on cue
My interpretation of the dates in the letter is that it will be the numbers reported on the 17th that show the increased supply reaching people's arms.
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
I'm about to bugger off into a meeting for the rest of the afternoon but at one point crime had fallen when compared with like for like offences.
The increases in crimes are for new types of crime, a lot relating to technology, such as mobile phone thefts and scamming have increased as the technology has proliferated.
But how much of that is not bothering to report it anymore. In the early nineties I had my car broken into. The response of the police basically boiled down to "Well what do you expect us to do about it". Why therefore would I waste my time again?
Depends, for example a mobile phone theft/loss or say a home or car insurance claim after a burglary require a police crime reference number.
Why on earth does Dave think any other country should jump to the EUs command? The EU was late to the party which means it's orders were later than other countries and any early delivery is down to their good will.
And given the EU's / Italy's treatment of Australia I cannot see many none EU countries prioritising delivery to the EU.
He has a very deliberate and consistent blind spot with regard to vaccine production, contracts and delivery.
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.
Its the same as it always is with the media: Pretty girls lives matter.
Pretty girls make the news. It was the same with the McCann's for instance. How many children go missing each year? Sadly far, far too many actually. But if its a pretty girl its news.
Doesn't mean the relatives of victims of people who aren't pretty girls are mourning any less.
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
I'm about to bugger off into a meeting for the rest of the afternoon but at one point crime had fallen when compared with like for like offences.
The increases in crimes are for new types of crime, a lot relating to technology, such as mobile phone thefts and scamming have increased as the technology has proliferated.
But how much of that is not bothering to report it anymore. In the early nineties I had my car broken into. The response of the police basically boiled down to "Well what do you expect us to do about it". Why therefore would I waste my time again?
Depends, for example a mobile phone theft/loss or say a home or car insurance claim after a burglary require a police crime reference number.
Which I didnt make because by making a claim I would still have paid the full cost of the smashed window as it was less than the excess but would have in addition lost my no claims bonus. So again I ask why bother reporting it. I know plenty of people who have seen the same and would no longer ring the police to report a crime because its a complete and utter waste of time.
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?
I totally agree that all people, especially women, deserve to feel safe when they walk home.
These discussions do slightly remind me of discussions surrounding low level crime and anti-social behaviour in previous years, in particular, those surrounding 'chavs' behaving anti-socially and making people feel intimidated. I'm pretty sure that those complaining at the time were told in no uncertain terms that crime was falling with a side-helping of 'try not to be so bigoted'.
I was beaten up by a gang of hoodies when I was at University in Greater London. I didn't do anything to provoke it, but I do take responsibility for cutting through a path at night rather than taking the longer route through the high street, which even as a 6ft 19 year old was stupid. The attack was one of a number that night - it was a revenge attack provoked by some former students returning and (I think) doing the same to a number of hoodies (and so it went on).
What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds.
Though how we prevent a police officer (if that is what has happened) from doing this is anybody's guess. Just hope it's an aberration.
"What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds."
Sounds like a very right-wing approach to law and order.
I disagree that it's a right-wing approach in the accepted sense - I think it can be seen more as extending the privilege of wealthy people who live in gated communities etc. and have no fear of crime on a day to day basis, to the less wealthy who live on council estates. It's quite egalitarian if you look at it that way.
Zero tolerance has been shown again and again to work - and that's hardly surprising. I don't think tolerating low level crime is kind to anyone - especially not the perpetrators.
Inaccurate population estimates from ONS? Duplication in the vaccination record-keeping? Non-residents being included in the numerator and not the denominator?
Great to see the split of PCR and LFD has now been added on the official site. Back in Jan over 2/3rds of LFD tests were getting confirmed by PCR within 3 days. Looking at the last week before the testing surge started (i.e. where data for 3 days PCR will be complete) the figure is now under 1/3rd - so either people have stopped bothering getting a confirmatory test, or the share of false positives has grown significantly.
Either way fine now the data is split out we can see for ourselves where the numbers are coming from.
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.
Everybody should feel safe.
At a general level, you are correct - everyone should have the same level of expectations and protections with regards to general safety in the city.
However, not all murders are equal in the context of that discussion. Targeted gang on gang murders - or even domestic murders - are not equivalent to random woman walking on street being abducted, raped and murdered in this context; nor would be 15 year old boy caught in the crossfire.
So we need to make sure we are comparing like for like. And I suspect if we just looked at the statistics for violent crime against strangers walking at night on the streets, women would be by far the more impacted.
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.....
LOL
Right on cue
My interpretation of the dates in the letter is that it will be the numbers reported on the 17th that show the increased supply reaching people's arms.
Nearer the start of April than the start of 'Mega March'.
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:
Recent years, such as Prince Philip's slitty eyed comment
1986 - "recent years"?
Is there no barrel bottom you will not scrape?
He does seem to have been mostly a good boy for the last couple of decades. Even the "it looks as though it was put in by an Indian" comment was 1999 and the aboriginals "do you still throw spears at each other" was 2002.
We've probably got more recent examples from Harry, which should be admissible, as he was in fully the Royal Family then
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?
I totally agree that all people, especially women, deserve to feel safe when they walk home.
These discussions do slightly remind me of discussions surrounding low level crime and anti-social behaviour in previous years, in particular, those surrounding 'chavs' behaving anti-socially and making people feel intimidated. I'm pretty sure that those complaining at the time were told in no uncertain terms that crime was falling with a side-helping of 'try not to be so bigoted'.
I was beaten up by a gang of hoodies when I was at University in Greater London. I didn't do anything to provoke it, but I do take responsibility for cutting through a path at night rather than taking the longer route through the high street, which even as a 6ft 19 year old was stupid. The attack was one of a number that night - it was a revenge attack provoked by some former students returning and (I think) doing the same to a number of hoodies (and so it went on).
What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds.
Though how we prevent a police officer (if that is what has happened) from doing this is anybody's guess. Just hope it's an aberration.
"What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds."
Sounds like a very right-wing approach to law and order.
I disagree that it's a right-wing approach in the accepted sense - I think it can be seen more as extending the privilege of wealthy people who live in gated communities etc. and have no fear of crime on a day to day basis, to the less wealthy who live on council estates. It's quite egalitarian if you look at it that way.
Zero tolerance has been shown again and again to work - and that's hardly surprising. I don't think tolerating low level crime is kind to anyone - especially not the perpetrators.
One of the problems we have as seen in the shopping riots in london. Quite a few of those perpetrators that were bought to court were on their tenth, twentieth or more offence and had never been incarcerated for it.
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.
Its the same as it always is with the media: Pretty girls lives matter.
Pretty girls make the news. It was the same with the McCann's for instance. How many children go missing each year? Sadly far, far too many actually. But if its a pretty girl its news.
Doesn't mean the relatives of victims of people who aren't pretty girls are mourning any less.
Bit like going potty over an allegation that someone once said something offensive to an attractive and well known actress, and ignoring the fact that several of her domestic staff might have been mistreated on a sustained basis.
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:
Inaccurate population estimates from ONS? Duplication in the vaccination record-keeping? Non-residents being included in the numerator and not the denominator?
Inaccurate population estimates from ONS? Duplication in the vaccination record-keeping? Non-residents being included in the numerator and not the denominator?
Just picking up on something @Luckyguy1983 has mentioned, I'm currently reading The Secret Barrister's book. It's very interesting, but I keep coming back to the mantra of the 2000s that crime is falling. Reading the book one gets the impression that crime (or, at least, accusations) is rife in this country.
I'm about to bugger off into a meeting for the rest of the afternoon but at one point crime had fallen when compared with like for like offences.
The increases in crimes are for new types of crime, a lot relating to technology, such as mobile phone thefts and scamming have increased as the technology has proliferated.
And particularly because the police are extremely reluctant to put any effort into investigating such fraud.
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.....
LOL
Right on cue
My interpretation of the dates in the letter is that it will be the numbers reported on the 17th that show the increased supply reaching people's arms.
Nearer the start of April than the start of 'Mega March'.
Just under half of March will be nearer to the start of April than the start of March, so a bit of a meaningless criticism.
It will be in time to keep up the pace on first doses while doing all the second doses.
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?
I totally agree that all people, especially women, deserve to feel safe when they walk home.
These discussions do slightly remind me of discussions surrounding low level crime and anti-social behaviour in previous years, in particular, those surrounding 'chavs' behaving anti-socially and making people feel intimidated. I'm pretty sure that those complaining at the time were told in no uncertain terms that crime was falling with a side-helping of 'try not to be so bigoted'.
I was beaten up by a gang of hoodies when I was at University in Greater London. I didn't do anything to provoke it, but I do take responsibility for cutting through a path at night rather than taking the longer route through the high street, which even as a 6ft 19 year old was stupid. The attack was one of a number that night - it was a revenge attack provoked by some former students returning and (I think) doing the same to a number of hoodies (and so it went on).
What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds.
Though how we prevent a police officer (if that is what has happened) from doing this is anybody's guess. Just hope it's an aberration.
"What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds."
Sounds like a very right-wing approach to law and order.
I disagree that it's a right-wing approach in the accepted sense - I think it can be seen more as extending the privilege of wealthy people who live in gated communities etc. and have no fear of crime on a day to day basis, to the less wealthy who live on council estates. It's quite egalitarian if you look at it that way.
Zero tolerance has been shown again and again to work - and that's hardly surprising. I don't think tolerating low level crime is kind to anyone - especially not the perpetrators.
One of the problems we have as seen in the shopping riots in london. Quite a few of those perpetrators that were bought to court were on their tenth, twentieth or more offence and had never been incarcerated for it.
Exactly. One of the good things about zero tolerance is just the complete disruption of crime and prevention of crime day to day by the police. I think that's what it really should be about.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Meanwhile, the continental panic attack over AZ and blood clots gathers pace...
So don't use the vaccine that may have a tiny chance of causing a blood clot, and instead be more exposed to a disease where one of the symptoms is blood clots.
Without further investigation it's impossible to say if it has anything to do with the vaccine; it could be pure chance - like the lightning strike fatality. And given the millions who've already used it, any such incidence ought to be extremely low.
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.
Everybody should feel safe.
At a general level, you are correct - everyone should have the same level of expectations and protections with regards to general safety in the city.
However, not all murders are equal in the context of that discussion. Targeted gang on gang murders - or even domestic murders - are not equivalent to random woman walking on street being abducted, raped and murdered in this context; nor would be 15 year old boy caught in the crossfire.
So we need to make sure we are comparing like for like. And I suspect if we just looked at the statistics for violent crime against strangers walking at night on the streets, women would be by far the more impacted.
An innocent 15 year old boy caught in the crossfire is similar, that 15 year old was still an innocent victim who should have been safe and whose family is still mourning an incredibly tragic loss of life. Though I don't see why innocent crossfire victims would just be boys and not girls too.
But absolutely we should compare like-for-like. I don't know if anyone has done that though. Perhaps all 19 murder victims were gangbangers who 'had it coming' but sadly I doubt it.
It would be good to get some statistics on people walking at night on streets but I suspect actually men are the more impacted, because the overall statistics show the overwhelming majority of violent crime victims are men yet men mistakenly assume they are safe while women know they are vulnerable.
Personally I deplore those anti-vaxxing, conspiracy theory spreading tin foil hat wearers at.......er.........Sky News.
I weep, I really do.
You don't think its irresponsible of Sky to run that story?
No. If there was a cover up that would make things worse. This is a precauionary measure and if, as I am confident will be the case, either a connection with the vaccine is ruled out altogether or it is the product of a problem with one batch, then I hope that will be reported similarly promenantly. Otherwise the conspriacy theorists WILL have a point.
Personally I deplore those anti-vaxxing, conspiracy theory spreading tin foil hat wearers at.......er.........Sky News.
I weep, I really do.
You don't think its irresponsible of Sky to run that story?
It's irresponsible to write "at present there is no firm evidence to suggest the two are linked" (emphasis mine) when the facts are that "at present there is no evidence to suggest the two are linked".
Of course they will report the suspension in Denmark and any other countries, that's news.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed straightaway.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
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.....
LOL
Right on cue
My interpretation of the dates in the letter is that it will be the numbers reported on the 17th that show the increased supply reaching people's arms.
Nearer the start of April than the start of 'Mega March'.
Just under half of March will be nearer to the start of April than the start of March, so a bit of a meaningless criticism.
It will be in time to keep up the pace on first doses while doing all the second doses.
Indeed, if it is delivered. As @Leon rightly says, there has been some subtle shuffling of the goalposts by the government. Let's hope they make up for the sluggish start.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
We are unilaterally doing transitions that suit us.
If the EU don't want to do the same transitions that is their choice.
We have taken back control of our decisions. Good.
If its being prevented then it isn't happening. 🤦♂️
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
Brilliant. So the famous benefit of Brexit which we've all been waiting to see for the last four years is, err, that the EU can continue to export to us with only minimal disruption for another year, but our small businesses trying to export to them are completely stuffed.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
We are unilaterally doing transitions that suit us.
If the EU don't want to do the same transitions that is their choice.
We have taken back control of our decisions. Good.
So speaks the True Believer!! I am sorry to break it to you Philip, Father Christmas and fairies at the end of the garden don't really exist!!
Personally I deplore those anti-vaxxing, conspiracy theory spreading tin foil hat wearers at.......er.........Sky News.
I weep, I really do.
You don't think its irresponsible of Sky to run that story?
No. If there was a cover up that would make things worse. This is a precauionary measure and if, as I am confident will be the case, either a connection with the vaccine is ruled out altogether or it is the product of a problem with one batch, then I hope that will be reported similarly promenantly. Otherwise the conspriacy theorists WILL have a point.
they are delaying our roll out in Denmark which hits the timetable by 4 weeks - so for 4 weeks the % of people who would have been vaccinated won't be and some of them will die - based on current number of deaths that will b about 60-80 extra people dead because they wanted to prevent the risk of a blood clot that there is no evidence the vaccine causes - it's shameful.
We passed 23 million first doses yesterday UK wide. Today Wales will pass 50 doses per 100 adults. It's likely that in the next few days England will pass 20 million first doses.
The statistics for care staff are dodgy because the ONS doesn't keep tabs on them the same way that they do for other groups. Many work in two care homes.
It is shockingly low, but I suppose the question needs to be asked whether they pose a risk to residents who are now vaccinated? If they do, they should consider their positions
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.
If you did an anonymous opinion poll today and asked people whether they thought being a prostitute was a respectable thing to do/be, what would the results be? Hopefully people have different attitudes today. Maybe that word is not acceptable today in itself.
The test isn't difficult: Would someone be pleased about their own child/sibling/grandchild/partner adopting such a career. Is it worthy of respect in such a way that people would talk about it like they would talk about a family member getting an apprenticeship, going to higher education, getting a job and so on.
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.
Everybody should feel safe.
At a general level, you are correct - everyone should have the same level of expectations and protections with regards to general safety in the city.
However, not all murders are equal in the context of that discussion. Targeted gang on gang murders - or even domestic murders - are not equivalent to random woman walking on street being abducted, raped and murdered in this context; nor would be 15 year old boy caught in the crossfire.
So we need to make sure we are comparing like for like. And I suspect if we just looked at the statistics for violent crime against strangers walking at night on the streets, women would be by far the more impacted.
An innocent 15 year old boy caught in the crossfire is similar, that 15 year old was still an innocent victim who should have been safe and whose family is still mourning an incredibly tragic loss of life. Though I don't see why innocent crossfire victims would just be boys and not girls too.
But absolutely we should compare like-for-like. I don't know if anyone has done that though. Perhaps all 19 murder victims were gangbangers who 'had it coming' but sadly I doubt it.
It would be good to get some statistics on people walking at night on streets but I suspect actually men are the more impacted, because the overall statistics show the overwhelming majority of violent crime victims are men yet men mistakenly assume they are safe while women know they are vulnerable.
Yes, that came out wrong - I was trying to equate the innocent 15-year old boy to the woman, and contrast it to the gangbanger or other targeted crime. And I used boy, not girl, to show that both genders can be innocent random victims.
Given that most murders are targeted to a specific person, I am not sure how many of the 19/22 are like-for-like comparisons with the Everard case.
So he's saying the EU are now angry at Johnson & Johnson & Johnson?
Should Ulrika be worried?
Well, on the one hand she's a 'Jonsson', so a little bit different; but on the other, she's a Swedish-British enterprise, just like the hated AstraZeneca...
I'd be on the lookout for petulant tweets from senior EU bureaucrats if I were her.
We are unilaterally doing transitions that suit us.
If the EU don't want to do the same transitions that is their choice.
We have taken back control of our decisions. Good.
We are unilaterally postponing a little of the disaster our government has led us into. Unfortunately, we can't 'take back control' of the other parts of the disaster. It is, as you say, entirely the EU's affair how they manage their borders, and they certainly don't owe us any favours. Indeed, as a rules-based organisation, they don't have much leeway to go beyond the letter of the various treaties.
How on earth, how in the name of heaven, can you seriously not be appalled by this clusterfuck? The very same clusterfuck every sane observer warned of. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that we needed at least six months, or preferably even longer, between the trade agreement text being available, and implementing it. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that the computer systems weren't there, the forms not printed, the regulations not specified in detail, etc etc. We were insulted for pointing out these indisputable facts, and the government blundered in with giving business about eight days, over the Christmas period, in the middle of a pandemic, to prepare.
This is, by a country mile, the very worst government we have had since at least the second world war. Just staggering inept and ideologically bonkers. Even in their own terms, even if you accept the highly dubious argument that Brexit will be good in the long term, there is no possible excuse for the catastrophic implementation. If we'd wanted a twelve month implementation period - which we should have wanted - we should have negotiated one, not blundered into chaos and then retrospectively half-bake a partially mitigating fudge.
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.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1370004869298413578?s=20
These discussions do slightly remind me of discussions surrounding low level crime and anti-social behaviour in previous years, in particular, those surrounding 'chavs' behaving anti-socially and making people feel intimidated. I'm pretty sure that those complaining at the time were told in no uncertain terms that crime was falling with a side-helping of 'try not to be so bigoted'.
I was beaten up by a gang of hoodies when I was at University in Greater London. I didn't do anything to provoke it, but I do take responsibility for cutting through a path at night rather than taking the longer route through the high street, which even as a 6ft 19 year old was stupid. The attack was one of a number that night - it was a revenge attack provoked by some former students returning and (I think) doing the same to a number of hoodies (and so it went on).
What I take away from this is that we need a zero tolerance approach to low level (and high level) crime of all kinds.
Though how we prevent a police officer (if that is what has happened) from doing this is anybody's guess. Just hope it's an aberration.
Given the attitudes towards child abuse that were (and probably still are) widespread in my lifetime, i'm not in the least bit surprised by his comment.
A politician has apologised to the trans community for causing "pain and hurt" over her actions on social media. Plaid Cymru Senedd member Helen Mary Jones has closed her personal Twitter account after admitting she followed others that shared transphobic content.
The Mid and West Wales MS has promised to undergo awareness training."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56352615
And given the EU's / Italy's treatment of Australia I cannot see many none EU countries prioritising delivery to the EU.
What, so that you can avowedly not vote for that person even more?
Khan's hegemony is your fault matey. Your politics got you here, not the weakness of the tory candidate. Other examples include Sunder Katwala and Anne McElvoy.
Can you tell me what sanction his wife gave to these outbursts of racism?
Or is Boris Johnson right when he said
“It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.”
The UK’s medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA) has stressed that it was not confirmed that the reported blood clot in Denmark was caused by the vaccine, adding that the Danish suspension was precautionary.
Phil Bryan, MHRA vaccines safety lead, said more than 11 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine had been administered across the UK and that reports of blood clots were not greater than would have occurred naturally.
"Blood clots can occur naturally and are not uncommon... We are keeping this issue under close review but available evidence does not confirm that the vaccine is the cause. People should still go and get their Covid-19 vaccine when asked to do so."
Right on cue
The law and practice of the late Roman republic (especially with regard to female slaves) beggars belief. Cicero, in his own life and attitude, was among the most civilised and humane of a pretty dodgy lot.
On the closed street - he got handed his Rs in the comments quire thoroughly.
https://twitter.com/ToryCycling/status/1357986418241503233
I'd be on the lookout for petulant tweets from senior EU bureaucrats if I were her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NopAq6tUHVk
Sounds like a very right-wing approach to law and order.
Is there no barrel bottom you will not scrape?
Austria and Italy have stopped using a batch of the jab, while Denmark and Norway have halted use of the vaccine."
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-blood-clot-reports-in-europe-prompt-investigation-into-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-12242530
The woman in question was not a slave, but as an actress, the general assumption was that she was a whore, and therefore legally incapable of being raped.
Sean Gabb delivered a very good lecture on Roman slavery on Youtube. He showed one of these saucy Victorian paintings of a young naked woman being auctioned off at a slave market. He pointed out that what is actually being shown is completely horrific - a group of men bidding for the right to rape a woman (it could just as easily have been a young man, for that matter).
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1370013488710565890/photo/1
The increases in crimes are for new types of crime, a lot relating to technology, such as mobile phone thefts and scamming have increased as the technology has proliferated.
I never really think about it and I don't have any feelings toward those who did it. I'm a different and much happier person now than I was then.
Anderton's said that homosexuals, drug addicts, and prostitutes who had HIV/AIDS were "swirling in a human cesspit of their own making"
https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/
Pretty girls make the news. It was the same with the McCann's for instance. How many children go missing each year? Sadly far, far too many actually. But if its a pretty girl its news.
Doesn't mean the relatives of victims of people who aren't pretty girls are mourning any less.
Zero tolerance has been shown again and again to work - and that's hardly surprising. I don't think tolerating low level crime is kind to anyone - especially not the perpetrators.
Inaccurate population estimates from ONS? Duplication in the vaccination record-keeping? Non-residents being included in the numerator and not the denominator?
Either way fine now the data is split out we can see for ourselves where the numbers are coming from.
However, not all murders are equal in the context of that discussion. Targeted gang on gang murders - or even domestic murders - are not equivalent to random woman walking on street being abducted, raped and murdered in this context; nor would be 15 year old boy caught in the crossfire.
So we need to make sure we are comparing like for like. And I suspect if we just looked at the statistics for violent crime against strangers walking at night on the streets, women would be by far the more impacted.
We've probably got more recent examples from Harry, which should be admissible, as he was in fully the Royal Family then
Did he say it again?
It will be in time to keep up the pace on first doses while doing all the second doses.
Which was the point. We've taken back control so can decide what we do. Which is what I always told you. If paperwork isn't in our interest, we won't require it. And that applies to the Irish Sea non-border much as the EU loathe that and want us to require it, its not in our interests to do so, so no.
https://twitter.com/MediaJerNYC/status/1369843850223759362
But absolutely we should compare like-for-like. I don't know if anyone has done that though. Perhaps all 19 murder victims were gangbangers who 'had it coming' but sadly I doubt it.
It would be good to get some statistics on people walking at night on streets but I suspect actually men are the more impacted, because the overall statistics show the overwhelming majority of violent crime victims are men yet men mistakenly assume they are safe while women know they are vulnerable.
Of course they will report the suspension in Denmark and any other countries, that's news.
Well done, Boris. You ended up half-implementing the transition period which every sane observer said was indispensable, and which you said you'd never implement. I suppose half is better than nothing.
If the EU don't want to do the same transitions that is their choice.
We have taken back control of our decisions. Good.
Today Wales will pass 50 doses per 100 adults.
It's likely that in the next few days England will pass 20 million first doses.
Surely the answer is use GPT3...
Given that most murders are targeted to a specific person, I am not sure how many of the 19/22 are like-for-like comparisons with the Everard case.
How on earth, how in the name of heaven, can you seriously not be appalled by this clusterfuck? The very same clusterfuck every sane observer warned of. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that we needed at least six months, or preferably even longer, between the trade agreement text being available, and implementing it. Everyone - every sane person looking at this - pointed out that the computer systems weren't there, the forms not printed, the regulations not specified in detail, etc etc. We were insulted for pointing out these indisputable facts, and the government blundered in with giving business about eight days, over the Christmas period, in the middle of a pandemic, to prepare.
This is, by a country mile, the very worst government we have had since at least the second world war. Just staggering inept and ideologically bonkers. Even in their own terms, even if you accept the highly dubious argument that Brexit will be good in the long term, there is no possible excuse for the catastrophic implementation. If we'd wanted a twelve month implementation period - which we should have wanted - we should have negotiated one, not blundered into chaos and then retrospectively half-bake a partially mitigating fudge.