Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
A British broadcaster has said she does not know whether her husband will ever have any kind of life again in an interview describing the “horror story” of his year with coronavirus.
Kate Garraway, a presenter on Good Morning Britain, recounted the months since Derek Draper, a 53-year-old former political adviser and lobbyist, was first hospitalised last March.
A year on, he remains in intensive care, experiencing only “fleeting glimmers of consciousness”, Garraway told the Sunday Times magazine.
Although the virus not been present in Draper’s body since the late summer, it has led to kidney failure, damage to his liver and pancreas and heart failure.
He has holes in his lungs following bacterial pneumonia and several infections. Doctors do not know why the virus has had such a destructive effect on Draper’s health and have said it is unlikely he will make a full recovery, Garraway said.
Exactly the same happened to a very old friend of mine. He got COVID-19 very early on, appeared to recover, in part, but it led to a chain reaction of kidney failure, heart damage, even brain damage. He is still in hospital and I wonder if he will ever get out, and if he does, I wonder if he will ever walk unaided. He has a wife and 17 year old son. He’s 56. Was healthy
Tragic. Why are these idiot countries banning Astra Zeneca? Even if 1 in 10,000 who have the jab do die of blood clots, 1 in 100 who get COVID-19 will die, and 5 in 100 will go to hospital and experience potentially life-altering illness
I agree with the thread header that the 8/1 for 40-45% is value. The SNP vote is trending downwards and has been for about a month. That may end once the Salmond/Sturgeon spat comes to an end of course but I think it is reasonable to assume that the damage to Sturgeon is not over yet.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
Traditional SNP voters - the ones that vote for independence first, with other policies secondary - have nowhere else to cast their constituency votes. Underplaying independence cost the SNP seats in the 2017 GE due to traditional SNP voters not turning out. I expect the same to happen in May. Is there a market for turnout?
Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.
There's no such thing as a particular person's truth. Truth exists independently.
He is, of course, completely wrong about foot patrols and the argument is another distraction. Z Cars would have had higher performance figures than George Dixon and co.
I see the "not all men" idiots are back out on social media. As with many such things, it's worth replacing the word "men" with other groupings to see if the sentiment still works. In this case, proponents are left to answer why it's OK to assert that, for example, "not all Muslims are terrorists" is either wrong or not comparable, and I think they'll struggle.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
Labour clearly wants to keep most Londoners renting yes, as that ensures they stay Labour voters.
If most Londoners owned their own properties there is a risk they could become Tory voters and obviously London Labour could not risk that!
I remember knocking doors in a nice Tory ward. Nice houses. Nice car. Bloke was happy to recant his tale of a Tory canvasser expressing his shock and indeed horror that this home-owning BMW driving man was a Labour voter. That he owned his house "should make you one of us".
If only everything was as simple as it is in HYUFDworld. Renters vote Labour. Home owners vote Tory. Ergo the reason why there aren't enough affordable homes must be cos Labour councils are afraid to lose people who rent as they'd immediately vote Tory.
Harry Cole, who incidentally was Carrie’s last beau, is not a credibly independent journalist.
A surprising amount of journalists are simply stooges for the government.
Any law that is open to such wide interpretation is i think almost by definition a bad one. Anybody breaking a law has to have a reasonable chance of being able to ascertain in advance that they are so doing. Otherwise (in this case) the chilling effect is to make anybody thinking about going on a legitimate protest potentially think twice for fear that somebody in authority might subjectively determine that they are guilty of a crime.
It may not criminalise the right to protest in practice. But it definitely has the effect of creating a line beyond which people are afraid to cross that is far removed from the actual legal line (incidentally this is the obvious problem of much of the coronavirus legislation and in particular the way it has often been policed - setting the legal line at a breach of legislation. But the assumed legal line at a breach of the guidance. Which is wrong in principle, even if one could argue that in the specific case of combatting Covid it had positive effects.
In amongst all of this note the careful and measured presence of Kate Middleton at the protest site yesterday, and also the article in the Sunday Telegraph today about how Charlotte and George write Mother's Day cards for "Granny Diana" each year, as well as to their mother, pointing out that "Papa misses you".
Very astute. Very shrewd.
They are showing how to do British public opinion just right.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
I never said the average graduate salary in London was 25k so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I agree with the thread header that the 8/1 for 40-45% is value. The SNP vote is trending downwards and has been for about a month. That may end once the Salmond/Sturgeon spat comes to an end of course but I think it is reasonable to assume that the damage to Sturgeon is not over yet.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
Traditional SNP voters - the ones that vote for independence first, with other policies secondary - have nowhere else to cast their constituency votes. Underplaying independence cost the SNP seats in the 2017 GE due to traditional SNP voters not turning out. I expect the same to happen in May. Is there a market for turnout?
I agree that not voting at all is more likely than voting for the Unionist parties.
An active media would be asking the SNP whether they want an independent Scotland to be a democratic country or whether they intend to carry on like this.
Depending on the question you ask I could look like a staunch monarchist (my general view is that it mostly works and it keeps the politics away from head of state business, so don’t change it) or a staunch Republican (away from that pragmatism I do think it’s a nonsense that we hand out those powers based on sometimes tenuous family links over many hundreds of years).
I doubt very many of those voters actively want change.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
Just like to add that of the 9 roles we're now recruiting for 3 are junior roles and the pay bracket is "£24-28k" depending on qualifications and experience. We expect that these will be filled by graduates or career changers with the graduates at the bottom of that bracket and the career changers at the top. These are actual real jobs being advertised today, not theoretical ones at 5 ultra high end law firms.
He is, of course, completely wrong about foot patrols and the argument is another distraction. Z Cars would have had higher performance figures than George Dixon and co.
Dixon knew what was going on on his patch.. coppers zooming round in cars less so....
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
When I started at the ONS I had to attend a diversity and training course. The guy running the course told us that when he lived in London he was mugged on three occasions. On each occasion the perpetrator was a black man.
He told us that this left him with an irrational fear of black men. He then went on to tell us that it was he who had the problem and that it had been up to him to get over it.
Now, I actually think women should be wary of men. After all, if they’re gonna get attacked, it’s most likely to be by a man.
But, think about what else we can apply this thinking to and ask yourself, am I comfortable with the logical conclusions.
Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.
Believe it or not there's a view in certain quarters that the big issue in all of this is not the ethics and sensibilities of the British tabloid press, or whether or not Meghan Markle was badly treated by the Royals, or whether or not she and Prince Harry were right to speak to Oprah Winfrey, but the "silencing" of brave, free thinking rebels against the woke machine such as Piers Morgan.
The police throughout the UK have a difficult job. Most forces appear to do it with fewer cockups than the Met. Is the Met just too big to be effectively managed?
Even smaller forces screw up spectacularly.
South Yorkshire police is probably the worst public service organisation out there.
In recent years its failures include the Hillsborough disaster and coverup.
Rotherham.
Orgreave.
I could add my run in with SYP. Doubly remarkable as we never went anywhere near the place.
So we're saying that if there is anything in this thrombosis BS, Pfizer is actually much higher risk?
BAN PFIZER! BAN IT NOW! AAARGH
(I want you to imagine I said that in the voice of Dave Keating.)
If we presume that the UK has done 5m AZ jabs, that means the risk of developing ‘a blood clot related event’ is 0.00026%, or, rounded up to two decimals, 0%
The Irish have ceased administering a life saving vaccine because it has, in effect, zero risk of causing dangerous blood clotting side effects
Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.
There's no such thing as a particular person's truth. Truth exists independently.
Regardless of the reductive childishness of that view, no one is saying you can't express it or define what 'independent' truth is (no doubt untainted by your life experiences, environment, gender, race, class, age etc).
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
Just like to add that of the 9 roles we're now recruiting for 3 are junior roles and the pay bracket is "£24-28k" depending on qualifications and experience. We expect that these will be filled by graduates or career changers with the graduates at the bottom of that bracket and the career changers at the top. These are actual real jobs being advertised today, not theoretical ones at 5 ultra high end law firms.
Those were actual average graduate salaries at the largest law firms in London.
Not roles which are not even specifically for graduates
I have been stopped once by the police: for cycling through Regents Park about two weeks after the July bombings. The police officer gave me a verbal warning and then proceeded to write it down in triplicate. An interesting discussion ensued.
On the other hand I have been given a Certificate of Achievement by the City of London Police for various work. And when my son was ill the police who picked him up and brought him home and stopped him dying were tremendously kind and helpful. When he was mugged going home from school the police did investigate with some care.
So while I am critical of police conduct and leadership and much of its culture, it is worth noting that many individual police officers do work hard and try to do their best. Those who do deserve better from their leadership.
The police throughout the UK have a difficult job. Most forces appear to do it with fewer cockups than the Met. Is the Met just too big to be effectively managed?
Even smaller forces screw up spectacularly.
South Yorkshire police is probably the worst public service organisation out there.
In recent years its failures include the Hillsborough disaster and coverup.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
Just like to add that of the 9 roles we're now recruiting for 3 are junior roles and the pay bracket is "£24-28k" depending on qualifications and experience. We expect that these will be filled by graduates or career changers with the graduates at the bottom of that bracket and the career changers at the top. These are actual real jobs being advertised today, not theoretical ones at 5 ultra high end law firms.
Those were actual graduate salaries at the largest law firms in London.
Not roles which are not even specifically for graduates
Yeah, but what point are you trying to make?
As I have pointed out, City Law firm "grad schemes" make up a tiny 1.5% of all "graduates" moving to London per year.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Yes it's £28k.
No, that is starting salary, not average graduate salary in London
Mr Johnson made his boast that Britain would have a “world-beating” programme when neither he nor anyone around him had the foggiest idea how to deliver on that promise. In so much as there was pre-existing capacity for tracking infection when Britain was hit by the pandemic, it lay within the NHS and with public health officials working for local government. Rather than tap into that expertise, the government went for a top-down scheme of its own spatchcocked devising. Local authorities, using staff who know their own patch in a way someone in a call centre hundreds of miles away never will, have proved much more effective when they have been involved in tracing infection. But they were largely cut out of the programme by a government that thought it knew best even though it understood little.
The NHS “Test and Trace” badging is an insult to the health service and a fraud on the public. The scheme is a tangled web of programmes mainly outsourced to companies. It is spraying cash at management consultants, some billing the taxpayer at the eye-popping rate of £6,600 a day. Tory ministers fell into the fallacy of thinking that something is bound to be good if it is costly and provided by the private sector. The government rushed to sign more than 400 deals with about 200 different suppliers, the majority of those contracts being directly awarded rather than put out to tender.
More and more evidence is coming to light, despite ministerial efforts to keep it hidden, of the circumvention of the usual safeguards designed to prevent corruption and ensure value for money. A startling number of contracts for protective equipment were awarded to friends and contacts of ministers, MPs, peers and advisers on a “VIP track”.
Yet Tories would be unwise to assume that there will not be any blowback. After a period of unusual politics, during which a Conservative government has splashed around cash like there is no tomorrow, the universe is bending back into a more familiar shape. Ministers are spending an increasing amount of their airtime having to justify spending reductions. They want to take a chunk out of the international aid budget. Health workers are furious, and have most of the public in their corner, after the government recommended a real-terms cut to their salaries. There will be much more of this to come.
For their opponents, “Tory waste” offers a theme with the potential to become very fruitful.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
Just like to add that of the 9 roles we're now recruiting for 3 are junior roles and the pay bracket is "£24-28k" depending on qualifications and experience. We expect that these will be filled by graduates or career changers with the graduates at the bottom of that bracket and the career changers at the top. These are actual real jobs being advertised today, not theoretical ones at 5 ultra high end law firms.
Those were actual average graduate salaries at the largest law firms in London.
Not roles which are not even specifically for graduates
We're going round in circles. Are those jobs at those law firms representative of the general market for graduate jobs in London. Yes or no?
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
It occurs to me that at this rate Europe will be lucky to be unlocked by this time next year without catastrophe.
That will have a lot of highly unfortunate knock on effects. Social, economic and probably political. For a start, if the EU are locked down in twelve months, or even if they merely ahve restrictions still in place while we don't, Marine Le Pen is probably favourite to win the French presidential election. Socially, apart from more deaths and traumas and disrupted education, large numbers of unemployed are not going to look to the centre. Economically, the possible consequences hardly bear thinking about but the euro is once again going to feel the strain.
It really is a disaster that they have raised so many needless doubts about vaccines. Some good news and a rapid change of course would be very welcome.
He is, of course, completely wrong about foot patrols and the argument is another distraction. Z Cars would have had higher performance figures than George Dixon and co.
Dixon knew what was going on on his patch.. coppers zooming round in cars less so....
We’ve done the studies, that’s just not what the numbers tell you. You do need some community policing for soft intelligence, but you need a mobile response capability for most crimes. Dixon will have walked past hundreds of crimes one street away without ever knowing about them, and he could never get to a 999 call two miles away fast enough to make a difference.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Yes it's £28k.
No, that is starting salary, not average graduate salary in London
You do realise that for 99% of graduates the starting salary and graduate salary are the same thing, right?
Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.
You don't understand. All these news media are being muzzled.
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Yes it's £28k.
No, that is starting salary, not average graduate salary in London
Hang on. At what point does someone stop being a "graduate"?
Or are you talking about the average salary for all people with degrees working in London? In which case you're way off.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Yes it's £28k.
No, that is starting salary, not average graduate salary in London
The average house price in London is around 650k. That means that even with a £65,000 deposit, a "graduate" would need to learn £146k per year to get a mortgage on the "average house". Or perhaps be in a couple each earning over £70k.
The fact is that 90%+ of all London "graduates" benefit from more affordable house prices.
I of course know there's houses in London significantly cheaper than 650k, but the point still stands.
"Douglas Murray engages in what of all the various ploys employed in waging the ludicrous War on Woke is perhaps the most common - making a mountain of a molehill."
Kinabalu.
Douglas Murray is a learned gentleman. Some of us on PB were way ahead of him though...
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
The police throughout the UK have a difficult job. Most forces appear to do it with fewer cockups than the Met. Is the Met just too big to be effectively managed?
Even smaller forces screw up spectacularly.
South Yorkshire police is probably the worst public service organisation out there.
In recent years its failures include the Hillsborough disaster and coverup.
Police Scotland have certainly had issues since they were formed from combining all the local forces. Bigger is not necessarily better.
And any hint of local accountability has completely vanished. The population under the control of Police Scotland is significantly smaller than that controlled by the Met but they have to supervise 1/3 of the British land mass. Its a joke to think that this can be done efficiently and centrally. But not a very funny one.
It occurs to me that at this rate Europe will be lucky to be unlocked by this time next year without catastrophe.
That will have a lot of highly unfortunate knock on effects. Social, economic and probably political. For a start, if the EU are locked down in twelve months, or even if they merely ahve restrictions still in place while we don't, Marine Le Pen is probably favourite to win the French presidential election. Socially, apart from more deaths and traumas and disrupted education, large numbers of unemployed are not going to look to the centre. Economically, the possible consequences hardly bear thinking about but the euro is once again going to feel the strain.
It really is a disaster that they have raised so many needless doubts about vaccines. Some good news and a rapid change of course would be very welcome.
They will also lash out more at us. What, we left the EU and vaccinated our population? How bloody dare we make them look incompetent!!!
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
Yes, I think people can misunderstand what an abundance of caution can mean. It's perfectly possible that halting could be more incautious. They may not have many receiving it yet, but is it still worth the risk of less people protected?
I agree with the thread header that the 8/1 for 40-45% is value. The SNP vote is trending downwards and has been for about a month. That may end once the Salmond/Sturgeon spat comes to an end of course but I think it is reasonable to assume that the damage to Sturgeon is not over yet.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
Traditional SNP voters - the ones that vote for independence first, with other policies secondary - have nowhere else to cast their constituency votes. Underplaying independence cost the SNP seats in the 2017 GE due to traditional SNP voters not turning out. I expect the same to happen in May. Is there a market for turnout?
I agree that not voting at all is more likely than voting for the Unionist parties.
An active media would be asking the SNP whether they want an independent Scotland to be a democratic country or whether they intend to carry on like this.
The overwhelmingly unionist Scottish media will be following the dictum “never interrupt your enemy when they making a mistake”.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
It occurs to me that at this rate Europe will be lucky to be unlocked by this time next year without catastrophe.
That will have a lot of highly unfortunate knock on effects. Social, economic and probably political. For a start, if the EU are locked down in twelve months, or even if they merely ahve restrictions still in place while we don't, Marine Le Pen is probably favourite to win the French presidential election. Socially, apart from more deaths and traumas and disrupted education, large numbers of unemployed are not going to look to the centre. Economically, the possible consequences hardly bear thinking about but the euro is once again going to feel the strain.
It really is a disaster that they have raised so many needless doubts about vaccines. Some good news and a rapid change of course would be very welcome.
It’s a worry for the world isn’t it? Firstly on sheer numbers of deaths, secondly because the EU won’t be able to help the rest of the larger nations get poorer countries vaccinated, and thirdly because it’ll stop a global economic recovery in its tracks.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
When Don Junior used the same analogy about refugees, that was widely taken as hateful and racist, not 'interesting and illuminating'.
So it's a more than a little hypocritical for the woke to adopt the same Trumpian analogy to attack men and then expect them not to take it personally:
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
When Don Junior used the same analogy about refugees, that was widely taken as hateful and racist, not 'interesting and illuminating'.
So it's a more than a little hypocritical for the woke to adopt the same Trumpian analogy to attack men and then expect them not to take it personally:
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
Not defending the Irish decision here, but that would not be the incremental cost. It would be how many would have died from not getting this week's vaccine supply during the period it would take for Ireland to catch up to where it would have been in its vaccination programme without the pause.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
When Don Junior used the same analogy about refugees, that was widely taken as hateful and racist, not 'interesting and illuminating'.
So it's a more than a little hypocritical for the woke to adopt the same Trumpian analogy to attack men and then expect them not to take it personally:
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
When Don Junior used the same analogy about refugees, that was widely taken as hateful and racist, not 'interesting and illuminating'.
So it's a more than a little hypocritical for the woke to adopt the same Trumpian analogy to attack men and then expect them not to take it personally:
I agree with the thread header that the 8/1 for 40-45% is value. The SNP vote is trending downwards and has been for about a month. That may end once the Salmond/Sturgeon spat comes to an end of course but I think it is reasonable to assume that the damage to Sturgeon is not over yet.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
Traditional SNP voters - the ones that vote for independence first, with other policies secondary - have nowhere else to cast their constituency votes. Underplaying independence cost the SNP seats in the 2017 GE due to traditional SNP voters not turning out. I expect the same to happen in May. Is there a market for turnout?
I agree that not voting at all is more likely than voting for the Unionist parties.
An active media would be asking the SNP whether they want an independent Scotland to be a democratic country or whether they intend to carry on like this.
The overwhelmingly unionist Scottish media will be following the dictum “never interrupt your enemy when they making a mistake”.
That may work in military tactics but its piss poor politics. At the moment not enough people seem to have noticed what has been going on to make a material difference and the MSM leaves them none the wiser.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Yes it's £28k.
No, that is starting salary, not average graduate salary in London
The average house price in London is around 650k. That means that even with a £65,000 deposit, a "graduate" would need to learn £146k per year to get a mortgage on the "average house". Or perhaps be in a couple each earning over £70k.
The fact is that 90%+ of all London "graduates" benefit from more affordable house prices.
I of course know there's houses in London significantly cheaper than 650k, but the point still stands.
I don’t suppose this dancing on the head of a pin is of any practical use in your job search?
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Yes it's £28k.
No, that is starting salary, not average graduate salary in London
You do realise that for 99% of graduates the starting salary and graduate salary are the same thing, right?
By 40 or 50 the average graduate will be earning significantly more than their starting salary
I agree with the thread header that the 8/1 for 40-45% is value. The SNP vote is trending downwards and has been for about a month. That may end once the Salmond/Sturgeon spat comes to an end of course but I think it is reasonable to assume that the damage to Sturgeon is not over yet.
There is also an interesting question on differential turnout. SNP supporters have traditionally been more likely to come out for Scottish elections than their opponents for a variety of obvious reasons. Given that the overall turnout is lower this gives the SNP a definite edge. But the utter shambles we are seeing in relation to the Salmond cover up, the blatant lying by Sturgeon, her husband and senior civil servants, the appalling behaviour of Swinny in respect of the OECD report and yet another financial disaster reported in the ST today where the Scottish government has guarantees for hundreds of millions for an aluminum smelting plant employing 100 people which look highly likely to go belly up would test the patience and perseverance of the average saint.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these voters are going to come back to the Unionist cause (although Labour may get a small boost) but I do think that the traditional differential turnout advantage may be lost.
Punters should be aware, however, that the peculiarities of the Scottish system mean that the SNP vote for constituencies will be significantly higher than it is for the list vote where split ticketing with the Greens (as they also support independence) is more common given the dominance that the SNP have in constituencies. 45% in the constituencies means that the SNP would be falling well short of a majority and that is not what the polls currently indicate. I think the odds of this are much better than 8/1 which makes this value but it is still quite high risk.
Traditional SNP voters - the ones that vote for independence first, with other policies secondary - have nowhere else to cast their constituency votes. Underplaying independence cost the SNP seats in the 2017 GE due to traditional SNP voters not turning out. I expect the same to happen in May. Is there a market for turnout?
I agree that not voting at all is more likely than voting for the Unionist parties.
An active media would be asking the SNP whether they want an independent Scotland to be a democratic country or whether they intend to carry on like this.
Bloody pro indy and pro SNP media. Who oh why won't the National join the rest of the press in being generally skeptical or down right hostile to the idea of independence and the SNP? How can we ever call ourselves a democracy if the whole media isn't on board with this?
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
My working theory about what's going on with AZ in Europe is of a domino effect: each time a doubt is raised, each time a falsehood is promulgated, each time a case of someone dying just after they've had it is discovered, and each time a national regulator panics as a result, so the reputational damage builds and the next scare becomes more likely. The rest of Europe is basically locked into this bizarre cycle of punching itself in the face over and over again and has no apparent means of escape.
The end result is more lockdowns and more dying for much longer, whilst the UK goes calmly about the business of saving itself with a perfectly good medicine and is liberated as a consequence. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Yes it's £28k.
No, that is starting salary, not average graduate salary in London
The average house price in London is around 650k. That means that even with a £65,000 deposit, a "graduate" would need to learn £146k per year to get a mortgage on the "average house". Or perhaps be in a couple each earning over £70k.
The fact is that 90%+ of all London "graduates" benefit from more affordable house prices.
I of course know there's houses in London significantly cheaper than 650k, but the point still stands.
It stands that it benefits Labour to keep most people in London renting yes and voting Labour rather than making housing more affordable so they can buy and become Tories.
Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.
Believe it or not there's a view in certain quarters that the big issue in all of this is not the ethics and sensibilities of the British tabloid press, or whether or not Meghan Markle was badly treated by the Royals, or whether or not she and Prince Harry were right to speak to Oprah Winfrey, but the "silencing" of brave, free thinking rebels against the woke machine such as Piers Morgan.
Who will think of us, the piteous cry of white, middle aged men everywhere.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
I thought about that when it was first raised. If I was asked to voluntarily operate a 6pm curfew for a time to allow the police to catch a serial killer who was preying on women by having far fewer people out to observe or check on I would. Wouldn't you?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
No. And I'd fight compulsory castration for men too.
There's approximately 6,000 training contracts (read: grad schemes) available per year for law graduates.
Half of those are in London, of which 30% are at "City" firms.
That's 900 places.
There's around 300k graduates every year, give or take. About 20% go to London. That's 60,000 people.
So City law jobs represent around 1.5% of London graduate jobs.
Most trainees in the largest London law firms are on £40,000+ on average in their first year, rising to £50,000+ for many by their second year. Most newly qualifieds in those London law firms earn over £60,000 at least, rising to £130,000 a year for those newly qualifieds in London working for White and Case, Latham and Watkins or Weil Gotshal, £133,000 at Skadden, £135,500 at Sidley Austin, £130,000 at Shearman and Sterling, £130,000 at Ropes and Gray, £111,000 at Paul Hastings, £132,000 at Millbank, £150,000 a year at Kirkland and Ellis, £120, 000 a year and Gibson and Dunn, £100,000 a year at Freshfields, £116,000 a year at Dechert, £131, 100 at Debevoise and Plimpton, £135,000 at Davis Polk and Wardwell, £120,000 at Covington and Burdwell, £100,000 at Clifford Chance and £133,000 at Cleary Gottlieb and £150,000 at Akin Gump https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms/
What a waste of a post, which adds absolutely nothing.
City law jobs represent 1.5% of all London graduate jobs.
1.5%!
And the average London graduate salary is far higher than the £25,000 you originally suggested
But we've shown it isn't 😂. We've shown the average London graduate salary is around 28-29k, which isn't too different to my 8 years out of date figure. Your salary figures for 1.5% of elite graduates at City law firms is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as usual.
No, you showed the average starting salary for a London graduate is £28-29k, which even then is higher than the £25k you suggested originally.
The average salary for London as a whole is £38k, let alone for graduates once they reach 40 to 50 when they will be earning around £40-£50k on average
Just admit you're wrong and out of touch. This conversation is boring now.
I made an off-hand comment on graduate salaries. Turns out I was in the right ballpark and you weren't. The salaries of "graduates" once they reach 40 to 50 is completely irrelevant to the discussion, especially as London is a young city. Like you say, older people tend to move out of the city.
The fact is you are completely out of touch, which is demonstrated by your obsession with Magic Circle graduate salaries and the specific schools politicians went to.
You weren't, you said £25k for graduates, not even £25k starting salary for graduates.
Except I didn't say that. I said that some graduates would be earning 25k in London. Just because the average is a little bit higher doesn't mean graduates wont be earning 25k in London.
In fact I personally know some graduates earning less than 25k in London. Funnily enough they don't work for City law firms...
So now you are the one being selective, there are also some graduates in the North earning over £100k but that is not the average is it.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
Yes it's £28k.
No, that is starting salary, not average graduate salary in London
The average house price in London is around 650k. That means that even with a £65,000 deposit, a "graduate" would need to learn £146k per year to get a mortgage on the "average house". Or perhaps be in a couple each earning over £70k.
The fact is that 90%+ of all London "graduates" benefit from more affordable house prices.
I of course know there's houses in London significantly cheaper than 650k, but the point still stands.
It stands that it benefits Labour to keep most people in London renting yes and voting Labour rather than making housing more affordable so they can buy and become Tories.
It may "benefit Labour" in theory but the fact remains that Labour voters generally do not want to keep renting. They want to buy. They want cheaper housing.
Luisa Porritt, London mayoral candidate for the LibDems, must have been given a significant boost.
Perhaps if anyone had heard of her.
I’ve had one pamphlet pushed through my door...for Brian Rose.
Luisa is an appealing candidate with attractive policies. Hopefully she'll get more exposure in the coming weeks. https://www.luisa4london.co.uk/
She’s got some interesting policies there. Homes in he heart of the city could be a real winner. She’s clearly on the saner end of the Lib Dem spectrum. It’s a shame she seems to be virtually non existent in what I have seen of the campaign nationally.
Luisa is a great candidate! Her issue is traction - does anyone care what policies the LibDems propose in London.
Its a one horse race in London. Had the Tories put up a candidate with a brain they might have been able to challenge Khan. Sadly they picked Shaun Bailey and seemingly have given him an open remit to say the most stupid and offensive things possible on a regular basis.
I think your post demonstrates there is some snobbery from the liberal left about Shaun Bailey, a BAME candidate from a working class background who spent some time homeless he is not a traditional Tory candidate but some of his policies have been very positive eg building properties for £100,000 for first time buyers in London.
I doubt any other Tory candidate would be doing much better in Lonon
Shaun Bailey is a moron and not a single person believes that these £100k starter homes will be possible. There's no snobbery towards him, he's just a complete idiot and people can see that he is and won't vote for him. I'm absolutely not going to vote for him despite campaigning and voting for Boris and even Zac Goldsmith despite the latter being a massive c***.
Not a single person on the liberal left who are quite happy keeping London only affordable for the graduate wealthy who tend to be liberal and for the non home owning poor who rent and tend to vote Labour believes £100k starter homes are affordable no.
You are a liberal not a social conservative like Bailey so it is equally ideological with you
If Shaun Bailey is the face of modern social conservatism then that ideology really is doomed.
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
Jesus Christ it’s insane. An ‘abundance of caution’ would mean racing to get as many jabs in Irish arms as possible, because the obvious threat, necessitating caution, is Covid-19.
Put it another way, every week 100 Irish men and women are marched out to be shot by a firing squad. However thanks to the miracle of science big pharma has invented bullet proof jackets which mean the bullets will bounce off the Irish people, and they survive, and go home. However it has now been discovered that in about 0.0003% of cases - which equals about 13 people in the entire Irish population - the jackets cause a rash which may lead to death. So we’re going to stop using them, and instead let 100 Irish people face the firing squad, every week, unprotected
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
Maybe I am being cynical but this smells political
Also being cynical, I don’t suppose the Irish have a temporary shortage of vaccines and need to slow down their vaccination programme for, say, a week?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
I thought about that when it was first raised. If I was asked to voluntarily operate a 6pm curfew for a time to allow the police to catch a serial killer who was preying on women by having far fewer people out to observe or check on I would. Wouldn't you?
Not in the cricket season. Play often goes on till 6pm. Can we say half seven and exempt day/night matches?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
No. And I'd fight compulsory castration for men too.
All mouth no trousers then, just like giving away your vaccine dose.
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
Jesus Christ it’s insane. An ‘abundance of caution’ would mean racing to get as many jabs in Irish arms as possible, because the obvious threat, necessitating caution, is Covid-19.
Put it another way, every week 100 Irish men and women are marched out to be shot by a firing squad. However thanks to the miracle of science big pharma has invented bullet proof jackets which mean the bullets will bounce off the Irish people, and they survive, and go home. However it has now been discovered that in about 0.0003% of cases - which equals about 13 people in the entire Irish population - the jackets cause a rash which may lead to death. So we’re going to stop using them, and instead let 100 Irish people face the firing squad, every week, unprotected
It's funny how the same "side effects" with Pfizer are totally ignored.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
I thought about that when it was first raised. If I was asked to voluntarily operate a 6pm curfew for a time to allow the police to catch a serial killer who was preying on women by having far fewer people out to observe or check on I would. Wouldn't you?
Not in the cricket season. Play often goes on till 6pm. Can we say half seven and exempt day/night matches?
"Douglas Murray engages in what of all the various ploys employed in waging the ludicrous War on Woke is perhaps the most common - making a mountain of a molehill."
Kinabalu.
Douglas Murray is a learned gentleman. Some of us on PB were way ahead of him though...
Good writer. Elegant speaker. A master proponent of urbane bigotry.
It occurs to me that at this rate Europe will be lucky to be unlocked by this time next year without catastrophe.
That will have a lot of highly unfortunate knock on effects. Social, economic and probably political. For a start, if the EU are locked down in twelve months, or even if they merely ahve restrictions still in place while we don't, Marine Le Pen is probably favourite to win the French presidential election. Socially, apart from more deaths and traumas and disrupted education, large numbers of unemployed are not going to look to the centre. Economically, the possible consequences hardly bear thinking about but the euro is once again going to feel the strain.
It really is a disaster that they have raised so many needless doubts about vaccines. Some good news and a rapid change of course would be very welcome.
It occurs to me that this is common or garden PB hyperbole. Europe will get there, probably by late summer / early autumn. It's vax programme is slow and that's very saddening but they will get there eventually this year.
This time next year is nothing more than hysterical clickbait. And yes, I'm willing to bet.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
I thought about that when it was first raised. If I was asked to voluntarily operate a 6pm curfew for a time to allow the police to catch a serial killer who was preying on women by having far fewer people out to observe or check on I would. Wouldn't you?
Somewhat analogous to would you accept certain restrictions on your work and leisure activities to contain a deadly virus?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
I thought about that when it was first raised. If I was asked to voluntarily operate a 6pm curfew for a time to allow the police to catch a serial killer who was preying on women by having far fewer people out to observe or check on I would. Wouldn't you?
Probably not. Firstly because, after lockdown, I don't think anyone is in favour of yet more bloody house arrest: our basic freedoms have been undermined enough as it is. Secondly, it would be collective punishment. Thirdly, it probably wouldn't work - and consequently, lastly, once begun it might go on for years.
Above all we must, if at all possible, avoid having lockdowns ever, ever again.
I took the weekly England data on age and created a spreadsheet of percentages for the age groups at MSOA level.
I used the NIMS estimates for population it 2021, rather than ONS 2019. I also had to adjust, since the NIMIS data was 16+, so worked out an adjacent factor to make it 18+
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
I thought about that when it was first raised. If I was asked to voluntarily operate a 6pm curfew for a time to allow the police to catch a serial killer who was preying on women by having far fewer people out to observe or check on I would. Wouldn't you?
For a day or two, sure. For a week or two, probably not. Forever? Definitely not.
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
Jesus Christ it’s insane. An ‘abundance of caution’ would mean racing to get as many jabs in Irish arms as possible, because the obvious threat, necessitating caution, is Covid-19.
Put it another way, every week 100 Irish men and women are marched out to be shot by a firing squad. However thanks to the miracle of science big pharma has invented bullet proof jackets which mean the bullets will bounce off the Irish people, and they survive, and go home. However it has now been discovered that in about 0.0003% of cases - which equals about 13 people in the entire Irish population - the jackets cause a rash which may lead to death. So we’re going to stop using them, and instead let 100 Irish people face the firing squad, every week, unprotected
It's funny how the same "side effects" with Pfizer are totally ignored.
And Oxford Astra Zeneca is the much cheaper vaccine, much easier to store, which is being given away not-for-profit. The smearing of this company and their drug - even if the development had flaws - is outrageous. Pfizer and Moderna are making big bucks. Yet AZ is the company being trashed.
Meanwhile Britain suddenly looks the only sane country in a continent gone mad. What a reversal
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
My working theory about what's going on with AZ in Europe is of a domino effect: each time a doubt is raised, each time a falsehood is promulgated, each time a case of someone dying just after they've had it is discovered, and each time a national regulator panics as a result, so the reputational damage builds and the next scare becomes more likely. The rest of Europe is basically locked into this bizarre cycle of punching itself in the face over and over again and has no apparent means of escape.
The end result is more lockdowns and more dying for much longer, whilst the UK goes calmly about the business of saving itself with a perfectly good medicine and is liberated as a consequence. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Eventually it reaches a tipping point where it becomes more important to stop using AZ quicker than other countries do so.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
BiB - speak for yourself. Never in my life have I ever looked at someone in public transport and thought they might be a terrorist based on their appearance.
It occurs to me that at this rate Europe will be lucky to be unlocked by this time next year without catastrophe.
That will have a lot of highly unfortunate knock on effects. Social, economic and probably political. For a start, if the EU are locked down in twelve months, or even if they merely ahve restrictions still in place while we don't, Marine Le Pen is probably favourite to win the French presidential election. Socially, apart from more deaths and traumas and disrupted education, large numbers of unemployed are not going to look to the centre. Economically, the possible consequences hardly bear thinking about but the euro is once again going to feel the strain.
It really is a disaster that they have raised so many needless doubts about vaccines. Some good news and a rapid change of course would be very welcome.
It occurs to me that this is common or garden PB hyperbole. Europe will get there, probably by late summer / early autumn. It's vax programme is slow and that's very saddening but they will get there eventually this year.
This time next year is nothing more than hysterical clickbait. And yes, I'm willing to bet.
Everyone is going to get more vaccines coming in, and they've not made no progress. They've made things worse for themselves by scaring people from taking the vaccines, but they'll still get it done this year I'd think
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
Jesus Christ it’s insane. An ‘abundance of caution’ would mean racing to get as many jabs in Irish arms as possible, because the obvious threat, necessitating caution, is Covid-19.
Put it another way, every week 100 Irish men and women are marched out to be shot by a firing squad. However thanks to the miracle of science big pharma has invented bullet proof jackets which mean the bullets will bounce off the Irish people, and they survive, and go home. However it has now been discovered that in about 0.0003% of cases - which equals about 13 people in the entire Irish population - the jackets cause a rash which may lead to death. So we’re going to stop using them, and instead let 100 Irish people face the firing squad, every week, unprotected
It's funny how the same "side effects" with Pfizer are totally ignored.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
BiB - speak for yourself. Never in my life have I ever looked at someone in public transport and thought they might be a terrorist based on their appearance.
Rubbish. Everyone has prejudices and/or unreasonable anxieties. The task is to be self-aware enough to recognise them and combat them.
It occurs to me that at this rate Europe will be lucky to be unlocked by this time next year without catastrophe.
That will have a lot of highly unfortunate knock on effects. Social, economic and probably political. For a start, if the EU are locked down in twelve months, or even if they merely ahve restrictions still in place while we don't, Marine Le Pen is probably favourite to win the French presidential election. Socially, apart from more deaths and traumas and disrupted education, large numbers of unemployed are not going to look to the centre. Economically, the possible consequences hardly bear thinking about but the euro is once again going to feel the strain.
It really is a disaster that they have raised so many needless doubts about vaccines. Some good news and a rapid change of course would be very welcome.
It occurs to me that this is common or garden PB hyperbole. Europe will get there, probably by late summer / early autumn. It's vax programme is slow and that's very saddening but they will get there eventually this year.
This time next year is nothing more than hysterical clickbait. And yes, I'm willing to bet.
You’re probably right. But every extra week of disease, and every extra delay in reaching herd immunity, means a greater risk of another horrible mutation. And back we go.
The EU is playing Russian roulette. There’s about 20 empty chambers and only one bullet, so they’ll probably be fine. But still, there is one bullet. And halting the use of AZ is like spinning the chambers and pulling the trigger, one more time
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
Will you voluntarily live under a 6pm curfew then?
No. And I'd fight compulsory castration for men too.
All mouth no trousers then, just like giving away your vaccine dose.
Yes yes yes. But just make sure you're not punting #notallmen around on social media. Which I'm sure you aren't. It's a certain tell of a softhead and/or misogynist. I'm right as I always am on this sort of thing.
Comments
Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.
Tragic. Why are these idiot countries banning Astra Zeneca? Even if 1 in 10,000 who have the jab do die of blood clots, 1 in 100 who get COVID-19 will die, and 5 in 100 will go to hospital and experience potentially life-altering illness
https://twitter.com/Coronavirusgoo1/status/1371065510041899008?s=20
I mean the people of Northern Ireland would like a word, as would the people of Tonypandy.
BAN PFIZER! BAN IT NOW! AAARGH
(I want you to imagine I said that in the voice of Dave Keating.)
It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.
The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.
The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!
If only everything was as simple as it is in HYUFDworld. Renters vote Labour. Home owners vote Tory. Ergo the reason why there aren't enough affordable homes must be cos Labour councils are afraid to lose people who rent as they'd immediately vote Tory.
It may not criminalise the right to protest in practice. But it definitely has the effect of creating a line beyond which people are afraid to cross that is far removed from the actual legal line (incidentally this is the obvious problem of much of the coronavirus legislation and in particular the way it has often been policed - setting the legal line at a breach of legislation. But the assumed legal line at a breach of the guidance. Which is wrong in principle, even if one could argue that in the specific case of combatting Covid it had positive effects.
Very astute. Very shrewd.
They are showing how to do British public opinion just right.
The average graduate in London, even for a starting salary, will be earning more than £25k
An active media would be asking the SNP whether they want an independent Scotland to be a democratic country or whether they intend to carry on like this.
Depending on the question you ask I could look like a staunch monarchist (my general view is that it mostly works and it keeps the politics away from head of state business, so don’t change it) or a staunch Republican (away from that pragmatism I do think it’s a nonsense that we hand out those powers based on sometimes tenuous family links over many hundreds of years).
I doubt very many of those voters actively want change.
Shows Labour has no good prospects if they go down the monarchy or republic debate
Ask again after the Platinum Jubilee next year.
He told us that this left him with an irrational fear of black men. He then went on to tell us that it was he who had the problem and that it had been up to him to get over it.
Now, I actually think women should be wary of men. After all, if they’re gonna get attacked, it’s most likely to be by a man.
But, think about what else we can apply this thinking to and ask yourself, am I comfortable with the logical conclusions.
Doubly remarkable as we never went anywhere near the place.
The Irish have ceased administering a life saving vaccine because it has, in effect, zero risk of causing dangerous blood clotting side effects
Not roles which are not even specifically for graduates
On the other hand I have been given a Certificate of Achievement by the City of London Police for various work. And when my son was ill the police who picked him up and brought him home and stopped him dying were tremendously kind and helpful. When he was mugged going home from school the police did investigate with some care.
So while I am critical of police conduct and leadership and much of its culture, it is worth noting that many individual police officers do work hard and try to do their best. Those who do deserve better from their leadership.
“Few, if any, pubs will open on 12 April.”
Solemn nodding.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/14/beer-gardens-sold-out-for-months-as-english-pubs-count-the-days-to-april-reopening?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
As I have pointed out, City Law firm "grad schemes" make up a tiny 1.5% of all "graduates" moving to London per year.
Mr Johnson made his boast that Britain would have a “world-beating” programme when neither he nor anyone around him had the foggiest idea how to deliver on that promise. In so much as there was pre-existing capacity for tracking infection when Britain was hit by the pandemic, it lay within the NHS and with public health officials working for local government. Rather than tap into that expertise, the government went for a top-down scheme of its own spatchcocked devising. Local authorities, using staff who know their own patch in a way someone in a call centre hundreds of miles away never will, have proved much more effective when they have been involved in tracing infection. But they were largely cut out of the programme by a government that thought it knew best even though it understood little.
The NHS “Test and Trace” badging is an insult to the health service and a fraud on the public. The scheme is a tangled web of programmes mainly outsourced to companies. It is spraying cash at management consultants, some billing the taxpayer at the eye-popping rate of £6,600 a day. Tory ministers fell into the fallacy of thinking that something is bound to be good if it is costly and provided by the private sector. The government rushed to sign more than 400 deals with about 200 different suppliers, the majority of those contracts being directly awarded rather than put out to tender.
More and more evidence is coming to light, despite ministerial efforts to keep it hidden, of the circumvention of the usual safeguards designed to prevent corruption and ensure value for money. A startling number of contracts for protective equipment were awarded to friends and contacts of ministers, MPs, peers and advisers on a “VIP track”.
Yet Tories would be unwise to assume that there will not be any blowback. After a period of unusual politics, during which a Conservative government has splashed around cash like there is no tomorrow, the universe is bending back into a more familiar shape. Ministers are spending an increasing amount of their airtime having to justify spending reductions. They want to take a chunk out of the international aid budget. Health workers are furious, and have most of the public in their corner, after the government recommended a real-terms cut to their salaries. There will be much more of this to come.
For their opponents, “Tory waste” offers a theme with the potential to become very fruitful.
Irish regulator hopes to lift vaccine pause in a week
The chair of Ireland’s National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC), Professor Karina Butler has been speaking about the temporary suspension of the Astrazeneca vaccine in Ireland, which she said was “necessary.” She hoped to be able to say in a week that the regulator had “acted out of an abundance of caution.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/mar/14/coronavirus-live-news-astrazeneca-reports-vaccine-shortfall-to-eu-sydney-hotel-quarantine-worker-tests-positive
Around 110 die in Ireland every week from COVID.
That will have a lot of highly unfortunate knock on effects. Social, economic and probably political. For a start, if the EU are locked down in twelve months, or even if they merely ahve restrictions still in place while we don't, Marine Le Pen is probably favourite to win the French presidential election. Socially, apart from more deaths and traumas and disrupted education, large numbers of unemployed are not going to look to the centre. Economically, the possible consequences hardly bear thinking about but the euro is once again going to feel the strain.
It really is a disaster that they have raised so many needless doubts about vaccines. Some good news and a rapid change of course would be very welcome.
The vast majority don't.
Not sure how this self-evident statement proves owt really.
Or are you talking about the average salary for all people with degrees working in London? In which case you're way off.
The fact is that 90%+ of all London "graduates" benefit from more affordable house prices.
I of course know there's houses in London significantly cheaper than 650k, but the point still stands.
It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."
So it's a more than a little hypocritical for the woke to adopt the same Trumpian analogy to attack men and then expect them not to take it personally:
https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/794203789477761024
Maybe I am being cynical but this smells political
Who oh why won't the National join the rest of the press in being generally skeptical or down right hostile to the idea of independence and the SNP? How can we ever call ourselves a democracy if the whole media isn't on board with this?
The end result is more lockdowns and more dying for much longer, whilst the UK goes calmly about the business of saving itself with a perfectly good medicine and is liberated as a consequence. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Put it another way, every week 100 Irish men and women are marched out to be shot by a firing squad. However thanks to the miracle of science big pharma has invented bullet proof jackets which mean the bullets will bounce off the Irish people, and they survive, and go home. However it has now been discovered that in about 0.0003% of cases - which equals about 13 people in the entire Irish population - the jackets cause a rash which may lead to death. So we’re going to stop using them, and instead let 100 Irish people face the firing squad, every week, unprotected
This time next year is nothing more than hysterical clickbait. And yes, I'm willing to bet.
Above all we must, if at all possible, avoid having lockdowns ever, ever again.
I took the weekly England data on age and created a spreadsheet of percentages for the age groups at MSOA level.
I used the NIMS estimates for population it 2021, rather than ONS 2019. I also had to adjust, since the NIMIS data was 16+, so worked out an adjacent factor to make it 18+
Very, very fine grained - nearly 7K areas.
A sample -
The full spreadsheet is here -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eiOMJVLijTAemsGJ6sYNC8jwzhLWPDs-/view?usp=sharing
Meanwhile Britain suddenly looks the only sane country in a continent gone mad. What a reversal
Wales 1st doses 29,169
2nd doses 7,372
The EU is playing Russian roulette. There’s about 20 empty chambers and only one bullet, so they’ll probably be fine. But still, there is one bullet. And halting the use of AZ is like spinning the chambers and pulling the trigger, one more time
Thanks to Covid and WFH, a significant proportion are now Generation Rent-Free, back at their parents.
The fact that a chunk of these young professionals are no longer in London may have an impact on the May elections.