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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
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.
I would agree that my personal dealings with the police have generally been polite, reasonably efficient and responsible but I am a white, middle aged, middle class man with a position in the law. If I did not have any one of those characteristics, let alone lack a combination of them, I suspect that my experience would have been significantly different and I am very open to the tales of those who have had that different experience.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
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
Meanwhile they're trying to claim the credit for the distribution of the Oxford/AZ vaccine to poorer countries via COVAX.
"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.
Well, he certainly manages to rile all the Left right people. He's a conservative provocateur whose public role roughly corresponds to that of Owen Jones - if Owen were ever correct about anything and had actual talent.
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.
Those that do will then move out of inner London to the Home Counties or outer suburbs at least to buy a property and many will thus become Tory voters, so they will then no longer be Labour voters
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.”
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
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.
I agree such cooperation and self restraint would be time limited and you would want evidence/persuasion that an arrest was imminent. I couldn't imagine doing that in a ripper situation that went on over many months, for example. But for short periods, yes. And I suspect that I would be more likely to comply if it was voluntary for what that's worth.
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.
For several weeks after 7/7 everyone in London was quietly terrified of young Muslim men looking sweaty and nervous and carrying large rucksacks on Tubes and buses. Anyone that denies this is a liar.
And those Londoners were right to be terrified because (and this is often forgotten) two weeks after 7/7, four young Muslim men with rucksacks tried to inflict mass death on public transport, all over again
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.
If WFH they will likely still return to London in the Summer post lockdown and rent again.
Longer term Generation rent outside London will tend to be younger people in the Home Counties born and raised and still living there, mainly working locally (those moving from London with London salaries may find it cheaper in the Home Counties, locals on local non London salaries still may not).
There however the clash will be young people wanting more affordable housing v older people who are already homeowners not wanting any further building on the green belt and in open fields
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.
Those that do will then move out of inner London to the Home Counties or outer suburbs at least to buy a property and many will thus become Tory voters, so they will then no longer be Labour voters
It’s not magic you know. Nobody sent me a Tory membership on completion of my first house. If I was the Labour Party I’d draw strength from your level of apparent complacency.
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
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.
It's genuinely hard to understand.
I have the leaflet they gave me last weekend when I had the AZN, and there’s no mention of blood clots under the lengthy list of possible side effects, even amongst those classified as uncommon.
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
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.
It's genuinely hard to understand.
I have the leaflet they gave me last weekend when I had the AZN, and there’s no mention of blood clots under the lengthy list of possible side effects, even amongst those classified as uncommon.
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
Isn't the point that the "side effect" is not actually a side effect of the vaccine, it's no higher than the normal occurrence rate in the general population?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
Ah but what's to stop the predators from wearing the sign?
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
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.
Out of over 10 million doses of each of Pfizer and AZ there have been 15 and 13 cases of thrombosis respectively- in line with what you’d expect in the unvaccinated population- yet the Irish are only suspending one.....the one with the lower case numbers....
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
That’s what women are telling us. That all men are under suspicion until proven otherwise based upon previous experience. That almost all women have experience of some form of sexual assault.
I find that really sad, so we must do better to prevent these anxieties from building in the first place.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
We know that the vast majority of people from Brazil are not infected with Covid-19. Nevertheless we quarantine all of them. For obvious reasons I am not in favour of having my own civil liberties restricted but I can understand why women might err on the side 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
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.
Those that do will then move out of inner London to the Home Counties or outer suburbs at least to buy a property and many will thus become Tory voters, so they will then no longer be Labour voters
It’s not magic you know. Nobody sent me a Tory membership on completion of my first house. If I was the Labour Party I’d draw strength from your level of apparent complacency.
Well there will even be a few Tory renters too and Blair even managed to win property owners (at least with a mortgage) but the evidence is clear, you are far more likely to become a Tory voter once you own a property than if you are still renting.
At the last general election for example the Tories won 57% of owner occupiers and the Tories won those who owned with a mortgage by 43% to 33% for Labour, private renters voted Labour by 46% to 31% for the Tories and social renters voted Labour by 45% to 33% for the Tories https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
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.
It's genuinely hard to understand.
I have the leaflet they gave me last weekend when I had the AZN, and there’s no mention of blood clots under the lengthy list of possible side effects, even amongst those classified as uncommon.
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
Isn't the point that the "side effect" is not actually a side effect of the vaccine, it's no higher than the normal occurrence rate in the general population?
That would be the default assumption, leaving us to try and explain why so many professional bodies around the world are suspending it.
The most worrying thing in the leaflet I got was that my vaccine was manufactured in Liverpool.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Yet if the same thing were to be said about black men, it would certainly be considered an attack on black men. Anxiety is real, and it should be heard, and personally I am prepared to listen to it and I have a strong desire that nobody should feel unsafe on the streets.
However, the plain fact is, you would not consider anxiety to be an adequate justification for the Tweet you posted to be made about any group of humans except men.
But like I said, I think this whole debate is an enormous distraction. So let's get back to talking about policing and the travails of Dick.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Yet if the same thing were to be said about black men, it would certainly be considered an attack on black men. Anxiety is real, and it should be heard, and personally I am prepared to listen to it and I have a strong desire that nobody should feel unsafe on the streets.
However, the plain fact is, you would not consider anxiety to be an adequate justification for the Tweet you posted to be made about any group of humans except men.
But like I said, I think this whole debate is an enormous distraction. So let's get back to talking about policing and the travails of Dick.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
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.
It's genuinely hard to understand.
I have the leaflet they gave me last weekend when I had the AZN, and there’s no mention of blood clots under the lengthy list of possible side effects, even amongst those classified as uncommon.
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
Isn't the point that the "side effect" is not actually a side effect of the vaccine, it's no higher than the normal occurrence rate in the general population?
That would be the default assumption, leaving us to try and explain why so many professional bodies around the world are suspending it.
The most worrying thing in the leaflet I got was that my vaccine was manufactured in Liverpool.
The statistics in the UK show that this has occurred slightly more often with the Pfizer vaccine. Why hasn't there been the same reaction to that?
And around the world? Isn't it just in the EU, when the EMA says it is fine?
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
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.
It's genuinely hard to understand.
I have the leaflet they gave me last weekend when I had the AZN, and there’s no mention of blood clots under the lengthy list of possible side effects, even amongst those classified as uncommon.
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
Isn't the point that the "side effect" is not actually a side effect of the vaccine, it's no higher than the normal occurrence rate in the general population?
That would be the default assumption, leaving us to try and explain why so many professional bodies around the world are suspending it.
The most worrying thing in the leaflet I got was that my vaccine was manufactured in Liverpool.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
We know that the vast majority of people from Brazil are not infected with Covid-19. Nevertheless we quarantine all of them. For obvious reasons I am not in favour of having my own civil liberties restricted but I can understand why women might err on the side of caution,
What a stupid analogy. What prop of men are killers? 0.0001%? What proportion of people coming from Brazil have the virus? I don’t know, but obviously it would be several magnitudes higher. But what’s really important is that only needs one person to set off a number of infections.
@rcs1000 , I remember another forum I posted on ages ago having a 'flood control' thing that prevented multiple posts - does Vanilla have such a thing?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Yet if the same thing were to be said about black men, it would certainly be considered an attack on black men. Anxiety is real, and it should be heard, and personally I am prepared to listen to it and I have a strong desire that nobody should feel unsafe on the streets.
However, the plain fact is, you would not consider anxiety to be an adequate justification for the Tweet you posted to be made about any group of humans except men.
But like I said, I think this whole debate is an enormous distraction. So let's get back to talking about policing and the travails of Dick.
If a tweet said “we need to curfew all black men” I’d meet it with the same disgust I met the tweet saying “we need to curfew all men” with.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
When I’m going out late at night I’m not randomly trusting any strangers, but more so men than women. I’ m alert and aware of my surroundings, who may or may not be walking behind and/or following me etc. I was given that advice by women in my family (mainly my mum) since I was a teenager. Carrying your keys in your hand in case anyone attacks you is another one. I wish I could tell who is dangerous and who is not but I can’t, so I’ve been told that I have to try to not put myself in positions where I could be attacked.
Today the EUMA ruled that the AZN vaccine does have serious side effects and urged extreme caution.
‘It’s clear that the use of this vaccine, and particularly its lack of use, has driven our politicians clean round the bend,’ a spokesperson said. ‘We urge people to remain calm while we try to sort the situation out and make sure vaccines can be produced and used safely without giving Ursula von der Leyen apoplexy.’
The side effects first began when the EU demanded it be given vaccines it hadn’t paid for and wasn’t entitled to. The vaccine, having failed here, then had the consequence that it made them all behave like toddlers throwing their toys out of the pram. Since then, it has had the even more sinister side effect of making them all sound like Naomi Wolfe or Donald Trump after they’ve had a few, making bizarre claims about its safety because they cannot bear the thought of people being protected from Covid at the expense of their political credibility.
‘We believe a fairly modest surgery, known as sacking the entire commission, would be effective,’ continued the spokesperson ‘but unfortunately we need more data on the spread of these side effects among politicians, especially in France, before we can approve the process.’
Contacted for comment, AZN said, ‘our vaccines are perfectly safe if used correctly by being jabbed in arms. The fact that Ursula von der Leyen and Emmanuel Macron want to jab two fingers up instead is causing the problem and we urge them to stick to our recommended methods.’
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
That’s what women are telling us. That all men are under suspicion until proven otherwise based upon previous experience. That almost all women have experience of some form of sexual assault.
I find that really sad, so we must do better to prevent these anxieties from building in the first place.
This really isn’t a men vs women thing.
Thing is, to take your girlfriend as an example, the man she should be most scared of? You.
That’s not to suggest for one moment that you would ever harm your girlfriend. But the reality is that most women abused by men are abused by their partner.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Excellent point.
I also can't believe that no one's suggested a policy of improving representation at senior levels yet. We should be putting women in charge of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office without delay...
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
We know that the vast majority of people from Brazil are not infected with Covid-19. Nevertheless we quarantine all of them. For obvious reasons I am not in favour of having my own civil liberties restricted but I can understand why women might err on the side of caution,
What a stupid analogy. What prop of men are killers? 0.0001%? What proportion of people coming from Brazil have the virus? I don’t know, but obviously it would be several magnitudes higher. But what’s really important is that only needs one person to set off a number of infections.
I can’t believe I’m having to explain this.
That’s absurd. What a staggeringly ignorant comment. Men commit more acts of harm against women than just murdering them. Add in the rapists, abusers, harassers, molesters then you have a far higher percentage. It’s insane you cannot grasp that.
I also don’t think we should curfew all men by 6pm either. I don’t think that’s a serious policy proposal, or at least I hope not. That’s not going to really solve the problem anyway.
Drakeford's got all the meds, suring up Big G's vote in the forthcoming elections.
No, Big G's analysis has been that Johnson's Conservative Party both procured and delivered the vaccine to patients' arms in Wales. Drakeford and Labour have been responsible for the oppressive lockdowns. A narrative that seems to have gained momentum on the ground.
Drakeford's got all the meds, suring up Big G's vote in the forthcoming elections.
No, Big G's analysis has been that Johnson's Conservative Party both procured and delivered the vaccine to patients' arms in Wales. Drakeford and Labour have been responsible for the oppressive lockdowns. A narrative that seems to have gained momentum on the ground.
Should I dust off my ‘Tories - most seats’ thread header?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
We know that the vast majority of people from Brazil are not infected with Covid-19. Nevertheless we quarantine all of them. For obvious reasons I am not in favour of having my own civil liberties restricted but I can understand why women might err on the side of caution,
What a stupid analogy. What prop of men are killers? 0.0001%? What proportion of people coming from Brazil have the virus? I don’t know, but obviously it would be several magnitudes higher. But what’s really important is that only needs one person to set off a number of infections.
I can’t believe I’m having to explain this.
That’s absurd. What a staggeringly ignorant comment. Men commit more acts of harm against women than just murdering them. Add in the rapists, abusers, harassers, molesters then you have a far higher percentage. It’s insane you cannot grasp that.
COVID is causing far more harm to women than men have.
Look, I’m not a judge, but I’d throw the book any man convicted of harming a woman. But some people have completely lost their minds in the last 48 hours.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
It is a common but very unfortunate delusion, mainly of those on the left, that you can uplift some people by downgrading others. The failure of Communism didn't teach them, so it's hard to see anything doing the job.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Excellent point.
I also can't believe that no one's suggested a policy of improving representation at senior levels yet. We should be putting women in charge of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office without delay...
You know, making light of women’s anxieties over murder, rape, and sexual assault doesn’t make you look good.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Yet if the same thing were to be said about black men, it would certainly be considered an attack on black men. Anxiety is real, and it should be heard, and personally I am prepared to listen to it and I have a strong desire that nobody should feel unsafe on the streets.
However, the plain fact is, you would not consider anxiety to be an adequate justification for the Tweet you posted to be made about any group of humans except men.
But like I said, I think this whole debate is an enormous distraction. So let's get back to talking about policing and the travails of Dick.
If a tweet said “we need to curfew all black men” I’d meet it with the same disgust I met the tweet saying “we need to curfew all men” with.
And if the Tweet simply had the word black before the word men, and related to a discussion of that community, rather than men as a whole?
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
That’s what women are telling us. That all men are under suspicion until proven otherwise based upon previous experience. That almost all women have experience of some form of sexual assault.
I find that really sad, so we must do better to prevent these anxieties from building in the first place.
This really isn’t a men vs women thing.
Thing is, to take your girlfriend as an example, the man she should be most scared of? You.
That’s not to suggest for one moment that you would ever harm your girlfriend. But the reality is that most women abused by men are abused by their partner.
Probably the reality for most covid cases too, more will have caught it from people they know than random strangers..
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.
It's genuinely hard to understand.
I have the leaflet they gave me last weekend when I had the AZN, and there’s no mention of blood clots under the lengthy list of possible side effects, even amongst those classified as uncommon.
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
Isn't the point that the "side effect" is not actually a side effect of the vaccine, it's no higher than the normal occurrence rate in the general population?
That would be the default assumption, leaving us to try and explain why so many professional bodies around the world are suspending it.
The most worrying thing in the leaflet I got was that my vaccine was manufactured in Liverpool.
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Excellent point.
I also can't believe that no one's suggested a policy of improving representation at senior levels yet. We should be putting women in charge of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office without delay...
There’s not been that suggestion because many people know the limits of representation, even prior to yesterday. Issues in relation to women’s safety aren’t going to be solved simply by putting more female faces at the top of the Met. Instead, (IMO) it has to be about reducing the rate of sexual assault, rape etc.
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety 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.
I'm not sure who is dancing on which pinhead here.
Further there are houses within a short commmute of London for abut 55-70% of that.
Even further, people can share a 2 bed house for a time at the start of their career if they need.
Even even further, people buying their first house can start at the bottom, rather than the average.
God save us from 'graduates' who think life owes them a perfect house with a cherry on top in London, and their own personal high end stable of sex dolls.
It doesn't.
No problem with more affordable London house prices, however.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
We know that the vast majority of people from Brazil are not infected with Covid-19. Nevertheless we quarantine all of them. For obvious reasons I am not in favour of having my own civil liberties restricted but I can understand why women might err on the side of caution,
What a stupid analogy. What prop of men are killers? 0.0001%? What proportion of people coming from Brazil have the virus? I don’t know, but obviously it would be several magnitudes higher. But what’s really important is that only needs one person to set off a number of infections.
I can’t believe I’m having to explain this.
That’s absurd. What a staggeringly ignorant comment. Men commit more acts of harm against women than just murdering them. Add in the rapists, abusers, harassers, molesters then you have a far higher percentage. It’s insane you cannot grasp that.
COVID is causing far more harm to women than men have.
Look, I’m not a judge, but I’d throw the book any man convicted of harming a woman. But some people have completely lost their minds in the last 48 hours.
I agree that some seem to have lost their minds but I don't see how a comparison with Covid is relevant or helpful. Unfortunate that the police has made matters worse.
Odd, but still not causative necessarily. Do apparent 'clusters' happen as a result of randomness? Absolutely! Do we know that is the case here? Not yet. Worth investigating, but also essential not to jump to conclusions.
Same happened here locally - a cluster of strange cancers around Fort Derrick (former US BW programme R&D base). Multiple in depth studies can find no causative link; models predict that across the US such clusters can be expected from randomness. Public does not (want to) understand.
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.
I live in Spain and you are spot on there. Facebook feed here is flooded with anti-vax stories related to AZN and blood clots. There seems to be be zero awareness of the notion of relative risk os the difference between correlation and causation. I have little chance of a jab before May now and every chance of more lockdowns looming. It's hugely depressing.
I also don’t think we should curfew all men by 6pm either. I don’t think that’s a serious policy proposal, or at least I hope not. That’s not going to really solve the problem anyway.
I thought this male curfew thing was a wry response to the Met telling women in south London not to go out after dark, rather than a serious proposal.
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.
From the perspective of me and my female friends/relatives, part of the reason is that the man who is alleged to have done this to Sarah Everard is a police officer. Someone who you’d expect to protect you. The other point is that Sarah took a lot of the precautions that many women do, and yet she was still attacked. Those two things I think are making at least some women feel more scared and powerless.
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.
Who is Sarah Everett anyway?
Sorry, I was copying and pasting a previous comment.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
That’s what women are telling us. That all men are under suspicion until proven otherwise based upon previous experience. That almost all women have experience of some form of sexual assault.
I find that really sad, so we must do better to prevent these anxieties from building in the first place.
This really isn’t a men vs women thing.
Thing is, to take your girlfriend as an example, the man she should be most scared of? You.
That’s not to suggest for one moment that you would ever harm your girlfriend. But the reality is that most women abused by men are abused by their partner.
Trouble is that whatever way you cut it the police and of course the wider criminal justice system completely fail women. When 90% of women say they would not report a sexual assault up to and including rape to the police because there is no point you have to accept that there is a serious failing in the whole system. These are not 'trouble makers' or professional agitators or the fringes of society with a grudge, they are the overwhelming majority of the female population of our country.
The police, as the front line of all of this, need to be doing whatever they can to build confidence in their part of the system even if the rest of it is still failing. They are not doing so and actions like last night are certainly not going to help. I actually don't know all the answers but then it is not my job to do so. It is the job of those charged with making operational and strategic decisions for the police. They are comprehensively failing in this task.
Truth is not all men are aggressive and predatory towards women. There must be a sizeable minority just like me, simply scared of them. I think it like the globe spider. He’s about a fraction of the size she is, and as he is crawling towards her nest he could be looking at those long legs and thinking he could be running up and down them all night. But he can’t know if she is hungry and is simply going to eat him.
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.
I didn’t say it was rational. These things often aren’t. But she’s experienced sexual assault before, just like a lot of women, and these things have a habit of bubbling to the surface.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Excellent point.
I also can't believe that no one's suggested a policy of improving representation at senior levels yet. We should be putting women in charge of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office without delay...
You know, making light of women’s anxieties over murder, rape, and sexual assault doesn’t make you look good.
A clever, opinionated young lawyer being swept along by fashionable opinions but not actually believing them enough to put up more than a piss-weak 'don't get so uptight about it man' argument isn't a great look on you either.
There is nothing wrong with being alert or suspicious about others for your own safety.
I've been a crime victim a number of occasions. I was a victim of GBH once that shattered my eyesight and nearly left me blind*, twice had my home burgled while I was at home**, while I also used to work somewhere that was subjected to armed robberies.
After each incident I was very jumpy, alert and suspicious at any strange noises afterwards.
If people are suspicious or alert after they or others have been a victim of crime that doesn't make them any kind of *-ist, it is basic self preservation.
These incidents also destroyed my faith in the criminal justice system too * Unprovoked and my attacker got a mere 6 month sentence. ** I caught the second burglar red-handed and got his reg plate he fled on. He was nicked the following week. He pled guilty to mine and 20 other incidents of breaking and entering to rob people's homes. He got a suspended sentence (!)
I also don’t think we should curfew all men by 6pm either. I don’t think that’s a serious policy proposal, or at least I hope not. That’s not going to really solve the problem anyway.
I thought this male curfew thing was a wry response to the Met telling women in south London not to go out after dark, rather than a serious proposal.
Those were thoughts too, but from the above discussions about it, I got the impression that some were taking the proposal seriously. So I was thinking maybe they’ve heard something that I haven’t.
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.
I didn’t say it was rational. These things often aren’t. But she’s experienced sexual assault before, just like a lot of women, and these things have a habit of bubbling to the surface.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
Very strange how the questioning seem to be from groups who say "you can't be a victim because it undermines *my* sense of victimhood." Most peculiar.
I also don’t think we should curfew all men by 6pm either. I don’t think that’s a serious policy proposal, or at least I hope not. That’s not going to really solve the problem anyway.
I thought this male curfew thing was a wry response to the Met telling women in south London not to go out after dark, rather than a serious proposal.
Those were thoughts too, but from the above discussions about it, I got the impression that some were taking the proposal seriously. So I was thinking maybe they’ve heard something that I haven’t.
I think when the Green peer was talking about it, it was a wry comment/response. Drakeford decided it merited serious consideration.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Yet if the same thing were to be said about black men, it would certainly be considered an attack on black men. Anxiety is real, and it should be heard, and personally I am prepared to listen to it and I have a strong desire that nobody should feel unsafe on the streets.
However, the plain fact is, you would not consider anxiety to be an adequate justification for the Tweet you posted to be made about any group of humans except men.
But like I said, I think this whole debate is an enormous distraction. So let's get back to talking about policing and the travails of Dick.
If a tweet said “we need to curfew all black men” I’d meet it with the same disgust I met the tweet saying “we need to curfew all men” with.
And if the Tweet simply had the word black before the word men, and related to a discussion of that community, rather than men as a whole?
Honestly, I’d meet it with much more suspicion. You know that, I know that.
However if 50% of the population all pretty much had a negative experience with a particular group of people, I think calls for the causes of such behaviour would be reasonable.
It is a thin edge and I acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy but I just don’t see it as an attack on me as a man. I see it as an attack on rapists, murderers, and violent criminals generally.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Embrace a curfew or all arguments that misogyny is a big problem are nullified? Gosh, this a tough one.
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.
Out of over 10 million doses of each of Pfizer and AZ there have been 15 and 13 cases of thrombosis respectively- in line with what you’d expect in the unvaccinated population- yet the Irish are only suspending one.....the one with the lower case numbers....
As I said, not defending the Irish decision. But you weaken your argument by misusing the maths.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Excellent point.
I also can't believe that no one's suggested a policy of improving representation at senior levels yet. We should be putting women in charge of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office without delay...
You know, making light of women’s anxieties over murder, rape, and sexual assault doesn’t make you look good.
What I'm making light of are the soft-headed identity politics that are being pushed in response to this serious crime. You want real policies that will make women safer? Hire more police, train them properly, and compel their senior officers to put them out on the streets to catch violent offenders instead of trawling Twitter for thought crimes. Have life sentences mean life for murderers and rapists.
Or we can go on signalling our virtue about 6pm curfews for half the population. As you prefer.
I also don’t think we should curfew all men by 6pm either. I don’t think that’s a serious policy proposal, or at least I hope not. That’s not going to really solve the problem anyway.
I thought this male curfew thing was a wry response to the Met telling women in south London not to go out after dark, rather than a serious proposal.
Those were thoughts too, but from the above discussions about it, I got the impression that some were taking the proposal seriously. So I was thinking maybe they’ve heard something that I haven’t.
As far as I know the only person who has apparently taken it seriously is Mark Drakeford. The originator of the 'suggestion' Baroness Jenny Jones made it clear it was an ironic comment in response to, as you say, the police suggestion that women should reduce the risk of being attacked by staying at home.
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.
It's genuinely hard to understand.
I have the leaflet they gave me last weekend when I had the AZN, and there’s no mention of blood clots under the lengthy list of possible side effects, even amongst those classified as uncommon.
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
Isn't the point that the "side effect" is not actually a side effect of the vaccine, it's no higher than the normal occurrence rate in the general population?
That would be the default assumption, leaving us to try and explain why so many professional bodies around the world are suspending it.
The most worrying thing in the leaflet I got was that my vaccine was manufactured in Liverpool.
The statistics in the UK show that this has occurred slightly more often with the Pfizer vaccine. Why hasn't there been the same reaction to that?
And around the world? Isn't it just in the EU, when the EMA says it is fine?
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.
But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.
It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.
From the perspective of me and my female friends/relatives, part of the reason is that the man who is alleged to have done this to Sarah Everard is a police officer. Someone who you’d expect to protect you. The other point is that Sarah took a lot of the precautions that many women do, and yet she was still attacked. Those two things I think are making at least some women feel more scared and powerless.
Yes, my wife has said much the same. She takes all of the same precautions when walking home in the evenings, has her special nightime bright trainers, a flourescent orange jacket, she always phones me as she gets to the tube station, I usually tell her to get an Uber or wait for me to come and get her, she ignores my advice and walks anyway. It's really got her quite worried, the fact that the prime suspect is a police just makes things even worse, that someone like that could get into such a position.
Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.
Hmm, didn't Donald Trump use the same metaphor about immigrants and M&Ms?
Quite so. We're seeing the sort of generalisations about men that if used about culture or race, would make 19th century Robert Carlyle blush, forget Enoch Powell.
Utter rubbish. Nobody is making "generalisations" about men. That's why the "not all men" claptrap is just as stupid as "all lives matter".
Women are talking openly on social media about their experiences and giving explanations about why they experience anxiety. It adds nothing to simply write off their experiences with the "HAH BUT ITS NOT ALL MEN IS IT".
Attack policy suggestions sure - for example the ridiculous "men curfew", but there's no need to take this all as a personal insult.
I'm not taking anything as a personal insult, I am merely gently making a pertinent comparison. The fact that you use the word claptrap, and feel the need to use shouty capitalisation when characterising the phrase 'not all men' (the same way that cartoon characterised it using a huge, aggressive man intimidating a woman), indicates that your critique of what is an incredibly bland, inoffensive and true statement does not hold water without embellishment.
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
The only person making this into a "men vs women" thing is you.
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
Exactly. We know that most men aren’t predators. But predators don’t wear a massive sign on their head saying ‘look, I’m a predator.’ So we have to be alert and weary because we don’t know who is normal, nice bloke and who isn’t.
So all men are under suspicion? Perhaps the non predators should wear a massive sign then.
That’s what women are telling us. That all men are under suspicion until proven otherwise based upon previous experience. That almost all women have experience of some form of sexual assault.
I find that really sad, so we must do better to prevent these anxieties from building in the first place.
This really isn’t a men vs women thing.
Thing is, to take your girlfriend as an example, the man she should be most scared of? You.
That’s not to suggest for one moment that you would ever harm your girlfriend. But the reality is that most women abused by men are abused by their partner.
Trouble is that whatever way you cut it the police and of course the wider criminal justice system completely fail women. When 90% of women say they would not report a sexual assault up to and including rape to the police because there is no point you have to accept that there is a serious failing in the whole system. These are not 'trouble makers' or professional agitators or the fringes of society with a grudge, they are the overwhelming majority of the female population of our country.
The police, as the front line of all of this, need to be doing whatever they can to build confidence in their part of the system even if the rest of it is still failing. They are not doing so and actions like last night are certainly not going to help. I actually don't know all the answers but then it is not my job to do so. It is the job of those charged with making operational and strategic decisions for the police. They are comprehensively failing in this task.
As mentioned the other day, jurors have a nasty habit of saying “not guilty”.
Obviously avoiding fuck ups in the investigation and prosecution should be a priority, but there’s not a lot you can do about trial by jury.
I’m currently reading the secret barrister book and he is very clear that the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is sacrosanct.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Excellent point.
I also can't believe that no one's suggested a policy of improving representation at senior levels yet. We should be putting women in charge of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office without delay...
You know, making light of women’s anxieties over murder, rape, and sexual assault doesn’t make you look good.
What I'm making light of are the soft-headed identity politics that are being pushed in response to this serious crime. You want real policies that will make women safer? Hire more police, train them properly, and compel their senior officers to put them out on the streets to catch violent offenders instead of trawling Twitter for thought crimes. Have life sentences mean life for murderers and rapists.
Or we can go on signalling our virtue about 6pm curfews for half the population. As you prefer.
I don’t disagree with your suggestions but I don’t see what that has got to do with women sharing their experiences on social media in order to educate men.
6pm curfews for half the population has nothing to do with it.
Drakeford's got all the meds, suring up Big G's vote in the forthcoming elections.
No, Big G's analysis has been that Johnson's Conservative Party both procured and delivered the vaccine to patients' arms in Wales. Drakeford and Labour have been responsible for the oppressive lockdowns. A narrative that seems to have gained momentum on the ground.
Should I dust off my ‘Tories - most seats’ thread header?
Possibly.
HYUFD's friend RT has been rather successful in condemning the lockdown.as uneccesarily overbearing, plus calling out Drakeford's woeful vaccination provision shortcomings, despite the evidence to the contrary. Don't forget Wales' Covid death figures are outrageously bad, and RT has focused on this too. Voters are also reminded that schools provision throughout the pandemic has been woefully poor in Wales compared to good performances in England and Scotland.
PC will have a dilemma if RT has most seats and Drakeford remains First Minister.
RT is still an utter cakeist clown in my opinion, but Johnson's (perceived) very impressive Covid performance nationally should help the Conservatives in Wales immeasurably.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Embrace a curfew or all arguments that misogyny is a big problem are nullified? Gosh, this a tough one.
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.
It's genuinely hard to understand.
I have the leaflet they gave me last weekend when I had the AZN, and there’s no mention of blood clots under the lengthy list of possible side effects, even amongst those classified as uncommon.
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
Isn't the point that the "side effect" is not actually a side effect of the vaccine, it's no higher than the normal occurrence rate in the general population?
That would be the default assumption, leaving us to try and explain why so many professional bodies around the world are suspending it.
The most worrying thing in the leaflet I got was that my vaccine was manufactured in Liverpool.
The statistics in the UK show that this has occurred slightly more often with the Pfizer vaccine. Why hasn't there been the same reaction to that?
And around the world? Isn't it just in the EU, when the EMA says it is fine?
Thailand, Norway, Iceland...
Ah, I had only heard about Norway (although it looks to be a reaction to the same cases?). The free pass on Pfizer is strange though.
But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL
Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.
I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.
I detect the hand of big American pharma as well. If AZ is rejected, they all make even vaster profits. And, as I have previously said, it benefits China and Russia, if Europe is damaged and divided, and thereby looks more kindly on Sputnik and Sinovac
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
It is a common but very unfortunate delusion, mainly of those on the left, that you can uplift some people by downgrading others. The failure of Communism didn't teach them, so it's hard to see anything doing the job.
Exploiters don't benefit from exploiting the exploited? Wonder why it happens then.
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.
Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.
Embrace a curfew or all arguments that misogyny is a big problem are nullified? Gosh, this a tough one.
But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL
Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.
I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.
I detect the hand of big American pharma as well. If AZ is rejected, they all make even vaster profits. And, as I have previously said, it benefits China and Russia, if Europe is damaged and divided, and thereby looks more kindly on Sputnik and Sinovac
In the long term, maybe, but in both short and medium term all the vaccines have buyers as soon as they are produced. They don’t need to nobble each other to achieve instant sales.
But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL
Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.
What did they die of? Is it like our old measure of a COVID death where someone could get hit by a bus but because they tested positive for COVID three months before they got counted as such.
Comments
The fact is that if such 'zingers' were being made concerning religions, races, or, for an even more direct comparison, women, the people making them would not be the toast of Twitter, they would be under criminal investigation.
It is a pity, that in a similar way to #Metoo, the real story is now being hidden in this rather asinine men vs. women argument.
In my opinion, the real story here (assuming this Met officer is guilty of this attack, and the other crime before it), is one of unequal policing, whereby it is considered the right decision for the law to be applied not universally without fear or favour, but to work differently for different groups. We saw this in Rotherham, where the failure to deal with grooming lead, unquestionably in my view, to a massive spread of these crimes. In microcosm, the current case has the same hallmarks, and this officer was not investigated (and stood down), which would almost certainly have prevented the second attack.
In every case, this manipulation of the law for 'the greater good' results in the greater bad, especially for the communities and interest groups it is designed to 'help'. The reputation of the Met (if that turns out to have been a consideration in the failure to investigate the initial incident), instead of being slightly nicked, has been hugely trashed.
This is a huge opportunity to fix that - however, not if it just becomes a battle of the sexes, and *especially* not if that battle results in more uneven application of the law, which if it happens, I can give you a cast iron guarantee will once again work against those it is designed to protect.
My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?
https://twitter.com/OliverVarhelyi/status/1370687524155318273
A woman telling the world that she's anxious around strange men in case they turn out to be a predator is not an "attack on men".
And those Londoners were right to be terrified because (and this is often forgotten) two weeks after 7/7, four young Muslim men with rucksacks tried to inflict mass death on public transport, all over again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_bombings
Longer term Generation rent outside London will tend to be younger people in the Home Counties born and raised and still living there, mainly working locally (those moving from London with London salaries may find it cheaper in the Home Counties, locals on local non London salaries still may not).
There however the clash will be young people wanting more affordable housing v older people who are already homeowners not wanting any further building on the green belt and in open fields
If there isn't a significant increase in other countries some questions need asking.
44.13% 10.20%
42.98% 9.91%
41.89% 9.41%
40.99% 8.80%
AZ is clearly getting a bad press over this, extending well beyond the EU.
See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.
I find that really sad, so we must do better to prevent these anxieties from building in the first place.
This really isn’t a men vs women thing.
At the last general election for example the Tories won 57% of owner occupiers and the Tories won those who owned with a mortgage by 43% to 33% for Labour, private renters voted Labour by 46% to 31% for the Tories and social renters voted Labour by 45% to 33% for the Tories
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
The most worrying thing in the leaflet I got was that my vaccine was manufactured in Liverpool.
However, the plain fact is, you would not consider anxiety to be an adequate justification for the Tweet you posted to be made about any group of humans except men.
But like I said, I think this whole debate is an enormous distraction. So let's get back to talking about policing and the travails of Dick.
However, the plain fact is, you would not consider anxiety to be an adequate justification for the Tweet you posted to be made about any group of humans except men.
But like I said, I think this whole debate is an enormous distraction. So let's get back to talking about policing and the travails of Dick.
And around the world? Isn't it just in the EU, when the EMA says it is fine?
I can’t believe I’m having to explain this.
‘It’s clear that the use of this vaccine, and particularly its lack of use, has driven our politicians clean round the bend,’ a spokesperson said. ‘We urge people to remain calm while we try to sort the situation out and make sure vaccines can be produced and used safely without giving Ursula von der Leyen apoplexy.’
The side effects first began when the EU demanded it be given vaccines it hadn’t paid for and wasn’t entitled to. The vaccine, having failed here, then had the consequence that it made them all behave like toddlers throwing their toys out of the pram. Since then, it has had the even more sinister side effect of making them all sound like Naomi Wolfe or Donald Trump after they’ve had a few, making bizarre claims about its safety because they cannot bear the thought of people being protected from Covid at the expense of their political credibility.
‘We believe a fairly modest surgery, known as sacking the entire commission, would be effective,’ continued the spokesperson ‘but unfortunately we need more data on the spread of these side effects among politicians, especially in France, before we can approve the process.’
Contacted for comment, AZN said, ‘our vaccines are perfectly safe if used correctly by being jabbed in arms. The fact that Ursula von der Leyen and Emmanuel Macron want to jab two fingers up instead is causing the problem and we urge them to stick to our recommended methods.’
Ursula von der Leyen was asked to comment.
That’s not to suggest for one moment that you would ever harm your girlfriend. But the reality is that most women abused by men are abused by their partner.
I also can't believe that no one's suggested a policy of improving representation at senior levels yet. We should be putting women in charge of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office without delay...
Look, I’m not a judge, but I’d throw the book any man convicted of harming a woman. But some people have completely lost their minds in the last 48 hours.
Very odd.
https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800
no comment needed
However, the median price for a 'house' (assuming dwelling) is currently around £470k, not £650k. That is a huge difference.
https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=5230&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup
Further there are houses within a short commmute of London for abut 55-70% of that.
Even further, people can share a 2 bed house for a time at the start of their career if they need.
Even even further, people buying their first house can start at the bottom, rather than the average.
God save us from 'graduates' who think life owes them a perfect house with a cherry on top in London, and their own personal high end stable of sex dolls.
It doesn't.
No problem with more affordable London house prices, however.
Same happened here locally - a cluster of strange cancers around Fort Derrick (former US BW programme R&D base). Multiple in depth studies can find no causative link; models predict that across the US such clusters can be expected from randomness. Public does not (want to) understand.
The police, as the front line of all of this, need to be doing whatever they can to build confidence in their part of the system even if the rest of it is still failing. They are not doing so and actions like last night are certainly not going to help. I actually don't know all the answers but then it is not my job to do so. It is the job of those charged with making operational and strategic decisions for the police. They are comprehensively failing in this task.
Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.
I've been a crime victim a number of occasions. I was a victim of GBH once that shattered my eyesight and nearly left me blind*, twice had my home burgled while I was at home**, while I also used to work somewhere that was subjected to armed robberies.
After each incident I was very jumpy, alert and suspicious at any strange noises afterwards.
If people are suspicious or alert after they or others have been a victim of crime that doesn't make them any kind of *-ist, it is basic self preservation.
These incidents also destroyed my faith in the criminal justice system too
* Unprovoked and my attacker got a mere 6 month sentence.
** I caught the second burglar red-handed and got his reg plate he fled on. He was nicked the following week. He pled guilty to mine and 20 other incidents of breaking and entering to rob people's homes. He got a suspended sentence (!)
However if 50% of the population all pretty much had a negative experience with a particular group of people, I think calls for the causes of such behaviour would be reasonable.
It is a thin edge and I acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy but I just don’t see it as an attack on me as a man. I see it as an attack on rapists, murderers, and violent criminals generally.
Ok, I might do the curfew. Is it today?
Or we can go on signalling our virtue about 6pm curfews for half the population. As you prefer.
Plus of course, it could just be variance in batches.
No one has explained to me how they meet quality control across batches, especially when there is such pressure to release them so quick.
And maybe where a country is asking for more and more quickly, there is politics at play for suspending use at same time.
Obviously avoiding fuck ups in the investigation and prosecution should be a priority, but there’s not a lot you can do about trial by jury.
I’m currently reading the secret barrister book and he is very clear that the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is sacrosanct.
6pm curfews for half the population has nothing to do with it.
HYUFD's friend RT has been rather successful in condemning the lockdown.as uneccesarily overbearing, plus calling out Drakeford's woeful vaccination provision shortcomings, despite the evidence to the contrary. Don't forget Wales' Covid death figures are outrageously bad, and RT has focused on this too. Voters are also reminded that schools provision throughout the pandemic has been woefully poor in Wales compared to good performances in England and Scotland.
PC will have a dilemma if RT has most seats and Drakeford remains First Minister.
RT is still an utter cakeist clown in my opinion, but Johnson's (perceived) very impressive Covid performance nationally should help the Conservatives in Wales immeasurably.