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 it has just triggered some of PB's 'won't someone think of the set-upon middle-aged, middle class white men?' community.
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.
Couldn’t agree more. The suggestions of idiots like Jenny Jones only serve to distract the debate and are a cause of mirth for men and women alike.
It comes to something that Davina McCall has her finger on the pulse more on this issue than a number of politicians and journalists. Generalising about men suggests they should all be treated with suspicion is nonsense virtue signalling and only serves to stoke fear further.
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
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.
I agree but do look at what I said. We cannot hold police responsible for the failings of the whole criminal justice system but as the 'face' of that system that should at least be making sure the bit they do have control of is as well managed and reassuring as possible. They have singularly failed to do that over the years and the situation is actually getting worse. That 90% I quoted was from the former Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police on WatO this lunchtime, Looking back, in 2012 that figure was 'only' 80%. So in the last decade a terrible situation has actually got worse not better.
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 don't think that's right at all. I think the point is more that it makes absolutely no sense to fix an issue of societal division by trying to increase the level of divisive rhetoric. That is literally the opposite of helpful.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
The one you linked happened two weeks after the jab, yet it is implied in the article that it must be due to the vaccine. Not sure of the details of the others, but the EMA has stated the rate is not unsurprising given how frequently blood clots occur. By extension, the same number of people must have had them after the Pfizer vaccine too, but you don't hear a squeak about 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.
It's just a strawman being used by softheads and misogynists to derail a debate about a problem that women have into something they are more comfortable with - a debate about a problem that men have.
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.
One severe cerebral hemorrhage (and she is not dead yet, error on my part), rest being autopsied.
Creepy man on Twitter doesn’t like woman having an opinion that doesn’t fit his narrative shocker. It’s quite possible Sarah wouldn’t want her death to met with covid spreading and a massive pile on. Her friends are probably in the best position to know. The anger should directed be almost entirely at one man (if found guilty) and it now feels like the suspect is just a sideshow who’s been forgotten about because of wider grievances.
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
I’d be happy to go along with that. No chance this guy will ever be released if found guilty.
I must say I was staggered that Harry Roberts was released a few years ago given he killed 2 policemen.
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.
Stocky, fear is not logical. In fact, it is experienced in an entirely other part of the brain from that which processes logic.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
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."
It's an even better way of saying "You have not come up with a way to keep onside that vast majority of men who are sympathetic to the problem - and who have spent their lives not imposing themselves on women nor disrespecting their personal space." Some men are odious creeps. You don't advance the cause by saying "Our default position is to treat all men as odious creeps".
It is very difficult for men to get prosecuted. Far too many women feel the system is stacked against them and the numbers for successful prosecutions bear that out. Here's a man offering a real help. How about in cases of violence/sexual assault by men against women, we shift the criminal burden of proof - from beyond all reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities.
I know that there are cases where that onus may have saved men who were subject to a malicious prosecution by a woman. But to remedy the greater harm, I reckon we'd have to live with that.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 457,632 38,640 496,272 East Of England 52,911 2,814 55,725 London 39,885 4,276 44,161 Midlands 90,892 6,221 97,113 North East And Yorkshire 81,148 8,701 89,849 North West 47,029 4,100 51,129 South East 86,634 8,330 94,964 South West 56,433 4,016 60,449
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.
It's just a strawman being used by softheads and misogynists to derail a debate about a problem that women have into something they are more comfortable with - a debate about a problem that men have.
It was a foolish stunt proposed by the Corbynista genius that is Mark Drakeford.
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
He will. He's both a policeman and a nonce. A prison sentence will effectively be a death sentence.
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
Just having the existing law applied to them would be a start. Your suggestion could have unintended consequences -eg. more police officers willing to cover up for colleagues because they know that if brought to justice they will receive an unfairly long sentence. Can we not just try applying the law fairly across the board?
"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.
He is an equivalent to Owen, yes. I agree with that. They are both good writers who at their best make some insightful points from a strongly defined political position. I vastly prefer Jones because his world view is quite close to mine and (I feel) is driven by positivity and hope rather than the bleak fatalism of the likes of Murray. By saying Jones has no merit, btw, you paint yourself as quite ridiculously one-eyed. Dumb move. I think you should take a leak out of my book and retain some objectivity and balance.
Creepy man on Twitter doesn’t like woman having an opinion that doesn’t fit his narrative shocker. It’s quite possible Sarah wouldn’t want her death to met with covid spreading and a massive pile on. Her friends are probably in the best position to know. The anger should directed be almost entirely at one man (if found guilty) and it now feels like the suspect is just a sideshow who’s been forgotten about because of wider grievances.
Is you guessing that 'It’s quite possible Sarah wouldn’t want her death to met with covid spreading and a massive pile on' one of them 'truths' that you nervous nellies are so worried about being suppressed?
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
He will. He's both a policeman and a nonce. A prison sentence will effectively be a death sentence.
This is isn't American TV. The number of people killed in UK prisons is pretty much zero. There are quite a few assaults between prisoners - but most are punch ups.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
Just having the existing law applied to them would be a start. Your suggestion could have unintended consequences -eg. more police officers willing to cover up for colleagues because they know that if brought to justice they will receive an unfairly long sentence. Can we not just try applying the law fairly across the board?
I think extra punishment for people who are employed by us to keep law and order, and abuse that trust, is fair. It wouldn't be an unfairly long sentence, they would deserve extra.
If the other policemen cover up for them, then the police are employing the wrong people
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
Just having the existing law applied to them would be a start. Your suggestion could have unintended consequences -eg. more police officers willing to cover up for colleagues because they know that if brought to justice they will receive an unfairly long sentence. Can we not just try applying the law fairly across the board?
I think extra punishment for people who are employed by us to keep law and order, and abuse that trust, is fair. It wouldn't be an unfairly long sentence, they would deserve extra
I don't know how you get to anything less than a full life tarrif if the alleged killer is guilty in this case.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
It was discussed on Dr John Campbell's YouTube covid update the other day. He was satisfied that the events were happening no more often than they would in the general population. And as has been pointed out, if there was a problem we'd have noticed it here in the UK weeks ago. Sicily may have had 4 deaths where you'd expect 2. Just the laws of chance.
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
Just having the existing law applied to them would be a start. Your suggestion could have unintended consequences -eg. more police officers willing to cover up for colleagues because they know that if brought to justice they will receive an unfairly long sentence. Can we not just try applying the law fairly across the board?
I think extra punishment for people who are employed by us to keep law and order, and abuse that trust, is fair. It wouldn't be an unfairly long sentence, they would deserve extra
I don't know how you get to anything less than a full life tarrif if the alleged killer is guilty in this case.
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
Just having the existing law applied to them would be a start. Your suggestion could have unintended consequences -eg. more police officers willing to cover up for colleagues because they know that if brought to justice they will receive an unfairly long sentence. Can we not just try applying the law fairly across the board?
I think extra punishment for people who are employed by us to keep law and order, and abuse that trust, is fair. It wouldn't be an unfairly long sentence, they would deserve extra
I don't know how you get to anything less than a full life tarrif if the alleged killer is guilty in this case.
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."
It's an even better way of saying "You have not come up with a way to keep onside that vast majority of men who are sympathetic to the problem - and who have spent their lives not imposing themselves on women nor disrespecting their personal space." Some men are odious creeps. You don't advance the cause by saying "Our default position is to treat all men as odious creeps".
It is very difficult for men to get prosecuted. Far too many women feel the system is stacked against them and the numbers for successful prosecutions bear that out. Here's a man offering a real help. How about in cases of violence/sexual assault by men against women, we shift the criminal burden of proof - from beyond all reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities.
I know that there are cases where that onus may have saved men who were subject to a malicious prosecution by a woman. But to remedy the greater harm, I reckon we'd have to live with that.
Discuss.
This is a man's world But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing, not one little thing, without a woman or a girl He's lost in the wilderness He's lost in bitterness, he's lost lost?
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
Perhaps we should all be very careful. PC Couzens hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and the media and social media stampede could have ramifications on claims as to the fairness of any trial.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
We look to be one of the few countries that does science.
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
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."
It's an even better way of saying "You have not come up with a way to keep onside that vast majority of men who are sympathetic to the problem - and who have spent their lives not imposing themselves on women nor disrespecting their personal space." Some men are odious creeps. You don't advance the cause by saying "Our default position is to treat all men as odious creeps".
It is very difficult for men to get prosecuted. Far too many women feel the system is stacked against them and the numbers for successful prosecutions bear that out. Here's a man offering a real help. How about in cases of violence/sexual assault by men against women, we shift the criminal burden of proof - from beyond all reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities.
I know that there are cases where that onus may have saved men who were subject to a malicious prosecution by a woman. But to remedy the greater harm, I reckon we'd have to live with that.
Discuss.
On the 'notallmen' thing, I'm talking about the people seizing on it and pouring their energies into stifling a debate they are uncomfortable with. Of course as a literal statement of the blindingly obvious, just like alllivesmatter, it is true.
That's an interesting idea on rape. The % convictions are terribly low.
"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.
He is an equivalent to Owen, yes. I agree with that. They are both good writers who at their best make some insightful points from a strongly defined political position. I vastly prefer Jones because his world view is quite close to mine and (I feel) is driven by positivity and hope rather than the bleak fatalism of the likes of Murray. By saying Jones has no merit, btw, you paint yourself as quite ridiculously one-eyed. Dumb move. I think you should take a leak out of my book and retain some objectivity and balance.
Artificial balance is, well, artificial. I've almost never agreed with a word that has emerged from Owen's mouth, have been repelled by most of them, and have observed that he almost never gives his political opponents an inch. So he can hardly complain when the compliment is returned.
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.
I don't see the relevance of that question. I am merely questioning: 1. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's victims by gender, colour, and historical victimhood. 2. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's fatcats by gender, colour, and historical rapine plunder. 3. Your utterly baseless assertion that we can make any meaningful positive difference to the lives of Group 1, by making the lives of Group 2 less happy.
Like all left wing solutions, the end game is a stagnant pond of human misery looking enviously on at those who just got on with living and enjoying life.
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
Just having the existing law applied to them would be a start. Your suggestion could have unintended consequences -eg. more police officers willing to cover up for colleagues because they know that if brought to justice they will receive an unfairly long sentence. Can we not just try applying the law fairly across the board?
I think extra punishment for people who are employed by us to keep law and order, and abuse that trust, is fair. It wouldn't be an unfairly long sentence, they would deserve extra.
If the other policemen cover up for them, then the police are employing the wrong people
Seeing as police covering up for their colleagues happens in every police force in the world perhaps its better to realise it is in the nature of the job rather than assuming they are the wrong people. Its a dangerous job, with a command structure so being a team player will always be really important to the police on the ground. Going against that, even when its in the interests of justice will be against their instincts and also harm their careers and relationships with colleagues.
Starting from there we can attempt to reduce the impact of the problem, it will never go away completely.
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."
It's an even better way of saying "You have not come up with a way to keep onside that vast majority of men who are sympathetic to the problem - and who have spent their lives not imposing themselves on women nor disrespecting their personal space." Some men are odious creeps. You don't advance the cause by saying "Our default position is to treat all men as odious creeps".
It is very difficult for men to get prosecuted. Far too many women feel the system is stacked against them and the numbers for successful prosecutions bear that out. Here's a man offering a real help. How about in cases of violence/sexual assault by men against women, we shift the criminal burden of proof - from beyond all reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities.
I know that there are cases where that onus may have saved men who were subject to a malicious prosecution by a woman. But to remedy the greater harm, I reckon we'd have to live with that.
Discuss.
This is a man's world But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing, not one little thing, without a woman or a girl He's lost in the wilderness He's lost in bitterness, he's lost lost?
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, Mr. Brown.
"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.
He is an equivalent to Owen, yes. I agree with that. They are both good writers who at their best make some insightful points from a strongly defined political position. I vastly prefer Jones because his world view is quite close to mine and (I feel) is driven by positivity and hope rather than the bleak fatalism of the likes of Murray. By saying Jones has no merit, btw, you paint yourself as quite ridiculously one-eyed. Dumb move. I think you should take a leak out of my book and retain some objectivity and balance.
Artificial balance is, well, artificial.
Yeah, but it's my whole gimmick.
I think kinabalu has a decent point, though whether Murray/Jones are direct equivalents I'd be less confident of, but the essential point of people like that making occasionally insightful points, well written, despite very partisan positioning, is one that is often true.
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.
I don't see the relevance of that question. I am merely questioning: 1. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's victims by gender, colour, and historical victimhood. 2. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's fatcats by gender, colour, and historical rapine plunder. 3. Your utterly baseless assertion that we can make any meaningful positive difference to the lives of Group 1, by making the lives of Group 2 less happy.
Like all left wing solutions, the end game is a stagnant pond of human misery looking enviously on at those who just got on with living and enjoying life.
I see someone is a big big fan of the OTT generalisation.
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.
When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already
He will. He's both a policeman and a nonce. A prison sentence will effectively be a death sentence.
This is isn't American TV. The number of people killed in UK prisons is pretty much zero. There are quite a few assaults between prisoners - but most are punch ups.
It was maybe slightly melodramatic phrasing, but Sutcliffe survived three assaults one of which was treated as attempted murder and blinded him in one eye, Nilsen one assault with a razor blade. Life in prison for a copper sex murderer is going to be even less pleasant than it is for most people.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
We look to be one of the few countries that does science.
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.
If this sentiment spreads...
The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.
A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation
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.
I don't see the relevance of that question. I am merely questioning: 1. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's victims by gender, colour, and historical victimhood. 2. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's fatcats by gender, colour, and historical rapine plunder. 3. Your utterly baseless assertion that we can make any meaningful positive difference to the lives of Group 1, by making the lives of Group 2 less happy.
Like all left wing solutions, the end game is a stagnant pond of human misery looking enviously on at those who just got on with living and enjoying life.
I see someone is a big big fan of the OTT generalisation.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
We look to be one of the few countries that does science.
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.
If this sentiment spreads...
The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.
A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation
Well - a weeks pause (Ireland) seems strange does it not?
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
The current dissing of the AZ vaccine in the name of the precautionary principle is of a piece with what went before: a flagrantly irrational anti-British stance motivated by apparent jealousy which is damaging untold numbers in Europe and the Third World as it is among the cheapest and most easily storable available.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
We look to be one of the few countries that does science.
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.
If this sentiment spreads...
The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.
A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation
Well - a weeks pause (Ireland) seems strange does it not?
Yes. Inexplicable. Are they going to do a huge and conclusive study into the alleged dangers of AZ in.... ‘one week’?
Again, all these countries need to do is look at one of the biggest vaccine studies in human history: the tens of millions of Britons who have been jabbed. Are deaths down? Yes, plunging. Are hospitalisations down? Yes, plunging. Could this just be lockdown? No, deaths and hospitalisations are falling fastest in the already-jabbed category.
Is there a dramatic surge in unexplained deaths from thrombosis, or other - alleged - vaccine-related afflictions? No, there’s no evidence whatsoever
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
We look to be one of the few countries that does science.
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.
If this sentiment spreads...
The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.
A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation
People interested in politics tend to obsess over Twitter because it has become an inherently political space. But globally it only has 330 million active users, that's compared to f**king LinkedIn with only slightly less at 303 million. It's a platform whose importance is vastly overrated.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
The current dissing of the AZ vaccine in the name of the precautionary principle is of a piece with what went before: a flagrantly irrational anti-British stance motivated by apparent jealousy which is damaging untold numbers in Europe and the Third World as it is among the cheapest and most easily storable available.
And it’s sold not-for-profit. The whole thing is mad. And sad
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.
It is also worth noting that a physician died after taking the (I think) Moderna vaccine, and it was considered to be pretty likely it was the result of the vaccine.
It is perfectly *possible* that AZ is connected with a very small increased risk of clots. But it seems extremely unlikely that the risks of taking the vaccine (even if this is the case) are even 1% of the risks of not taking the vaccine.
The problem is, though, that humans don't think that way. If you offer someone a 5% chance of dropping dead in the next year, or a 1% chance of dropping dead immediately following an injection, followed by 0% chance of dropping dead in the following year, you'd find a lot of people going for the first option.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
We look to be one of the few countries that does science.
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.
If this sentiment spreads...
The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.
A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation
Well - a weeks pause (Ireland) seems strange does it not?
Yes. Inexplicable. Are they going to do a huge and conclusive study into the alleged dangers of AZ in.... ‘one week’?
Again, all these countries need to do is look at one of the biggest vaccine studies in human history: the tens of millions of Britons who have been jabbed. Are deaths down? Yes, plunging. Are hospitalisations down? Yes, plunging. Could this just be lockdown? No, deaths and hospitalisations are falling fastest in the already-jabbed category.
Is there a dramatic surge in unexplained deaths from thrombosis, or other - alleged - vaccine-related afflictions? No, there’s no evidence whatsoever
As a Brit, is a rather rare wonderful warm feeling - to be on top of the world at something. It's been a good few years now since we last felt that sense of national smugness - at being able to put on a decent Olympics opening ceremony.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
The current dissing of the AZ vaccine in the name of the precautionary principle is of a piece with what went before: a flagrantly irrational anti-British stance motivated by apparent jealousy which is damaging untold numbers in Europe and the Third World as it is among the cheapest and most easily storable available.
And it’s sold not-for-profit. The whole thing is mad. And sad
While virtue-signalling about exporting the very expensive BioNTech vaccine...
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
We look to be one of the few countries that does science.
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.
If this sentiment spreads...
The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.
A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation
Well - a weeks pause (Ireland) seems strange does it not?
Yes. Inexplicable. Are they going to do a huge and conclusive study into the alleged dangers of AZ in.... ‘one week’?
Again, all these countries need to do is look at one of the biggest vaccine studies in human history: the tens of millions of Britons who have been jabbed. Are deaths down? Yes, plunging. Are hospitalisations down? Yes, plunging. Could this just be lockdown? No, deaths and hospitalisations are falling fastest in the already-jabbed category.
Is there a dramatic surge in unexplained deaths from thrombosis, or other - alleged - vaccine-related afflictions? No, there’s no evidence whatsoever
As a Brit, is a rather rare wonderful warm feeling - to be on top of the world at something. It's been a good few years now since we last felt that sense of national smugness - at being able to put on a decent Olympics opening ceremony.
And this time we don't have a logo that looks like a fly tipping incident.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
The current dissing of the AZ vaccine in the name of the precautionary principle is of a piece with what went before: a flagrantly irrational anti-British stance motivated by apparent jealousy which is damaging untold numbers in Europe and the Third World as it is among the cheapest and most easily storable available.
And it’s sold not-for-profit. The whole thing is mad. And sad
While virtue-signalling about exporting the very expensive BioNTech vaccine...
Also while virtue-signalling the EU's contribution to financing supply of AZ to the Third World.
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.
It is also worth noting that a physician died after taking the (I think) Moderna vaccine, and it was considered to be pretty likely it was the result of the vaccine.
It is perfectly *possible* that AZ is connected with a very small increased risk of clots. But it seems extremely unlikely that the risks of taking the vaccine (even if this is the case) are even 1% of the risks of not taking the vaccine.
The problem is, though, that humans don't think that way. If you offer someone a 5% chance of dropping dead in the next year, or a 1% chance of dropping dead immediately following an injection, followed by 0% chance of dropping dead in the following year, you'd find a lot of people going for the first option.
Human beings believe what they want to believe, despite science. Their knowledge is formed by more than science. If a COVID vaccine is made by a company that cocked up and covered up previously, over a morning sickness pill for example, it doesn’t take the most sophisticated internet conspiracy to sow doubt in people’s minds wether it is 100% safe.
When a Boris, or a Monarch or a Chairman Mao says kill all sparrows, how many people instantly question it on basis of science?
RE: vaccines. You know what's even more stupid about all these AZ suspensions. That EVEN if, after detailed analysis, it was concluded that there was a small potential risk/causal link between the vaccine and blood clots then the likely outcome would be that the programme would be restarted... with an additional potential side effect added of possibility of blood clots! It is extremely unlikely (somebody more knowledgeable correct me if i'm wrong) that the outcome would be the banning of the vaccine. Because the rewards would clearly be assessed as outweighing the risks. There are other medical products that list blood clots as theoretical possible side effects in a minute number of cases (somebody suggested the morning after pill?).
It just doing the anti-vaxxers work and undermining confidence piece by piece (which is the REAL danger to comprehensive vaccine rollout). So stupid and sad. The irony is that AZ is using a proven technology. The real experiment going on is Pfizer/Moderna.
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.
It is also worth noting that a physician died after taking the (I think) Moderna vaccine, and it was considered to be pretty likely it was the result of the vaccine.
It is perfectly *possible* that AZ is connected with a very small increased risk of clots. But it seems extremely unlikely that the risks of taking the vaccine (even if this is the case) are even 1% of the risks of not taking the vaccine.
The problem is, though, that humans don't think that way. If you offer someone a 5% chance of dropping dead in the next year, or a 1% chance of dropping dead immediately following an injection, followed by 0% chance of dropping dead in the following year, you'd find a lot of people going for the first option.
Human beings believe what they want to believe, despite science. Their knowledge is formed by more than science. If a COVID vaccine is made by a company that cocked up and covered up previously, over a morning sickness pill for example, it doesn’t take the most sophisticated internet conspiracy to sow doubt in people’s minds wether it is 100% safe.
When a Boris, or a Monarch or a Chairman Mao says kill all sparrows, how many people instantly question it on basis of science?
Indeed. If no man is an island, no datum is an island within the human brain.
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.
Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.
Not consp theorising, just saying.
You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.
Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
We look to be one of the few countries that does science.
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.
If this sentiment spreads...
The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.
A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation
Well - a weeks pause (Ireland) seems strange does it not?
Yes. Inexplicable. Are they going to do a huge and conclusive study into the alleged dangers of AZ in.... ‘one week’?
Again, all these countries need to do is look at one of the biggest vaccine studies in human history: the tens of millions of Britons who have been jabbed. Are deaths down? Yes, plunging. Are hospitalisations down? Yes, plunging. Could this just be lockdown? No, deaths and hospitalisations are falling fastest in the already-jabbed category.
Is there a dramatic surge in unexplained deaths from thrombosis, or other - alleged - vaccine-related afflictions? No, there’s no evidence whatsoever
As a Brit, is a rather rare wonderful warm feeling - to be on top of the world at something. It's been a good few years now since we last felt that sense of national smugness - at being able to put on a decent Olympics opening ceremony.
And this time we don't have a logo that looks like a fly tipping incident.
"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.
He is an equivalent to Owen, yes. I agree with that. They are both good writers who at their best make some insightful points from a strongly defined political position. I vastly prefer Jones because his world view is quite close to mine and (I feel) is driven by positivity and hope rather than the bleak fatalism of the likes of Murray. By saying Jones has no merit, btw, you paint yourself as quite ridiculously one-eyed. Dumb move. I think you should take a leak out of my book and retain some objectivity and balance.
Artificial balance is, well, artificial. I've almost never agreed with a word that has emerged from Owen's mouth, have been repelled by most of them, and have observed that he almost never gives his political opponents an inch. So he can hardly complain when the compliment is returned.
Which tells me you have seen little of his output. For example, his conversational pieces with political opponents are acknowledged by all sides to be thoughtful and fair.
My point stands absolutely, London is divided between wealthy liberal homeowners and renters who tend to vote Labour, the left are happy to keep it that way, affordable new housing to buy in London is not a priority for them
It's just possible that some of us might blame the nationwide lack of affordable housing and disastrous distortion in the economy of using residential real estate as a store of value on the party that has been in power for 29 of the last 42 years and specifically ran a policy to reduce rentable stock.
Unwinding this is going to be a three-decade problem, and none of your candidates, whether the usual stack of poshos or drudged-up second-raters who spend their entire time with foot in mouth, has a single useful thing to say about the matter.
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.
I don't see the relevance of that question. I am merely questioning: 1. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's victims by gender, colour, and historical victimhood. 2. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's fatcats by gender, colour, and historical rapine plunder. 3. Your utterly baseless assertion that we can make any meaningful positive difference to the lives of Group 1, by making the lives of Group 2 less happy.
Like all left wing solutions, the end game is a stagnant pond of human misery looking enviously on at those who just got on with living and enjoying life.
You're just rabbiting. You said it's a delusion of the left that people can be uplifted via the downgrading of others. But it's clearly not a delusion (of left or right) because exploiters do exactly that. Did slave owners not uplift themselves via the downgrading of their slaves? Of course they did.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity/status/1371088862622183428?s=20
Not consp theorising, just saying.
It comes to something that Davina McCall has her finger on the pulse more on this issue than a number of politicians and journalists. Generalising about men suggests they should all be treated with suspicion is nonsense virtue signalling and only serves to stoke fear further.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwYtnojXMAAPvaV?format=jpg&name=large
The anger should directed be almost entirely at one man (if found guilty) and it now feels like the suspect is just a sideshow who’s been forgotten about because of wider grievances.
I must say I was staggered that Harry Roberts was released a few years ago given he killed 2 policemen.
So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/
It is very difficult for men to get prosecuted. Far too many women feel the system is stacked against them and the numbers for successful prosecutions bear that out. Here's a man offering a real help. How about in cases of violence/sexual assault by men against women, we shift the criminal burden of proof - from beyond all reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities.
I know that there are cases where that onus may have saved men who were subject to a malicious prosecution by a woman. But to remedy the greater harm, I reckon we'd have to live with that.
Discuss.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date
Total 457,632 38,640 496,272
East Of England 52,911 2,814 55,725
London 39,885 4,276 44,161
Midlands 90,892 6,221 97,113
North East And Yorkshire 81,148 8,701 89,849
North West 47,029 4,100 51,129
South East 86,634 8,330 94,964
South West 56,433 4,016 60,449
1st/2nd
2,486 2,334
Equivalent of 175k UK wide total
If the other policemen cover up for them, then the police are employing the wrong people
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1371100779436777477?s=20
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing, not one little thing, without a woman or a girl
He's lost in the wilderness
He's lost in bitterness, he's lost lost?
It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....
They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....
That's an interesting idea on rape. The % convictions are terribly low.
The stats are good news though.
1. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's victims by gender, colour, and historical victimhood.
2. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's fatcats by gender, colour, and historical rapine plunder.
3. Your utterly baseless assertion that we can make any meaningful positive difference to the lives of Group 1, by making the lives of Group 2 less happy.
Like all left wing solutions, the end game is a stagnant pond of human misery looking enviously on at those who just got on with living and enjoying life.
Starting from there we can attempt to reduce the impact of the problem, it will never go away completely.
I think kinabalu has a decent point, though whether Murray/Jones are direct equivalents I'd be less confident of, but the essential point of people like that making occasionally insightful points, well written, despite very partisan positioning, is one that is often true.
If this sentiment spreads...
The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.
A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation
Again, all these countries need to do is look at one of the biggest vaccine studies in human history: the tens of millions of Britons who have been jabbed. Are deaths down? Yes, plunging. Are hospitalisations down? Yes, plunging. Could this just be lockdown? No, deaths and hospitalisations are falling fastest in the already-jabbed category.
Is there a dramatic surge in unexplained deaths from thrombosis, or other - alleged - vaccine-related afflictions? No, there’s no evidence whatsoever
Facebook on the other hand...
NEW THREAD
Drakeford - what a legend - discuss
It is perfectly *possible* that AZ is connected with a very small increased risk of clots. But it seems extremely unlikely that the risks of taking the vaccine (even if this is the case) are even 1% of the risks of not taking the vaccine.
The problem is, though, that humans don't think that way. If you offer someone a 5% chance of dropping dead in the next year, or a 1% chance of dropping dead immediately following an injection, followed by 0% chance of dropping dead in the following year, you'd find a lot of people going for the first option.
When a Boris, or a Monarch or a Chairman Mao says kill all sparrows, how many people instantly question it on basis of science?
It just doing the anti-vaxxers work and undermining confidence piece by piece (which is the REAL danger to comprehensive vaccine rollout). So stupid and sad. The irony is that AZ is using a proven technology. The real experiment going on is Pfizer/Moderna.
Unwinding this is going to be a three-decade problem, and none of your candidates, whether the usual stack of poshos or drudged-up second-raters who spend their entire time with foot in mouth, has a single useful thing to say about the matter.