If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
Totally agree with you mate, the way the older generation fail to appreciate the sacrifices of young people is a constant stream of shite they continue to send our way. The idea that social distancing is a "low cost" measure is ridiculous. It will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race as how the hell is any single person supposed to meet anyone without breaking the idiotic social distancing rules.
You see it here all the time with long term measures proposed by older posters presented as this non-issue that everyone should simply accept for the greater good. Well fuck that and if it turns out that Nige is the only one opposing it then I'll have to vote for Nige.
I have a very good older friend who lives in a nice house, is semi-retired, well-off and is vaccinated. Every time I complain he blithely assures me that it's not that bad and think of how it was during the war (ended some time before he was born mind you). Sometimes it's very difficult to keep my temper.
To be fair to him, he's not a fan of extending restrictions, but it does seem to be a far too common attitude.
Incidentally on the topic of religion I said I was torn the other day in how to fill in the religious question for the Census. Previous two I'd put "Jedi" as my answer for that question as despite vehemently having no religion I felt it was not a question the Government should be asking.
This time I put No Religion down. After the move towards blasphemy laws and attacks on free speech around the world I feel like its appropriate to add my name to the No Religion total, despite still thinking it is none of the state's business to know about.
TBH I don't think the public is in favour of authoritarian policies, they are pro not catching/dying from Covid-19.
I think that is exactly the point and if you think Boris is bad compare him with Sturgeon and now Drakeford who is telling us in Wales this will continue into 2022
The difference between Boris and the other two is that the other want a zero covid response before lifting freedoms and of course they both use New Zealand as their inspiration
They are wrong but if the 4 administrations all follow a different path out of this chaos will ensue
Posters must remember this is just not about England but Scotland Wales and NI as well
But you consistently misrepresent or don't understand the Welsh government's position.
Drakeford's comments are similar to what JVT and Hancock have said. Assuming no vaccine resistant variants there'll be still be some minor peripheral changes to what we were used pre Covid-19.
Drakeford said in the Welsh news that restrictions will continue into 2022, not some minor peripheral changes
I am not sure if you watched his interview on Welsh politics programme
I did actually.
Some restrictions, just like Hancock and JVT, Whitty, and Vallance have also said.
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
This is a government which does not fundamentally believe in the principles underlying liberal democracy, let alone that they are categorical imperatives.
I have been boring on - and no doubt boring everyone on here - about this for some time.
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
We have never needed the Coronavirus Act, as I have argued above and below the line, ad nauseam. The Civil Contingencies Act - itself an authoritarian piece of legislation - provides all the powers needed. The only reason for the Coronavirus Act is to avoid any scrutiny of the government. By passing it MPs rendered themselves irrelevant.
A bit bloody late for them to be complaining now.
IMO it’s to the government’s credit that they’ve spent the last year without reference to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
FPT - The Liberal Democrats voting against the extension of the Covid Act is very significant - they should be doing much more of that if they want to be more relevant in future: advocating liberalism.
Would that make me more likely to vote for them?
Yes.
Me too. It's about time we had a party in this country that understands what a liberal democracy is and what it should and should not do.
As expected when I was poo-poohed on here yesterday over the direction of travel re vax passports, it now looks as if the government is not going to lift any restrictions at all post June but continue them in another guise. Social distancing will continue unless you can produce proof that you're healthy.
And how are hospitality venues supposed to comply with this? Ah yes - ask for proof. Very well and when some council busybody or policeman comes in to ask for proof of this how are they supposed to provide it? By showing the records they've kept, maybe? Great. Go to a pub and ask them to keep medical info about you safely.
The NHS is not overwhelmed. Deaths and cases are down significantly and continuing to decrease. Vaccinations continue. These were meant to be the data points to rely on. Now the government is tearing these up and just introducing their own version of China's social credit system. Well, stuff that.
Yes, and the extension of the virus laws until September doesn't inspire any confidence that the government will ever give up these powers. Labour are equally to blame IMO, they've barely said anything about it and have voted in favour each time despite enough Tory MPs potentially willing to make the government pay attention and slim down the measures now that we're in the final stages of it.
You're going to hate the comparison but this is what it felt like being a leave supporter from 2016-2019 watching a majority of MPs try and find a way to override democracy. The whole "well the people voted for something but there's no majority in the house" attitude has come back. There's a powerlessness that I can't stand as this whole thing is starting to feel like a stitch up between government and opposition to deny us basic freedoms.
I don't hate the comparison at all. If anything it's worse than you say. Then some MPs were trying to ignore a democratic vote. This time people have voted for this useless shower of authoritarians.
People are obsessing about flags and singing Britons never shall be slaves at the Proms while obediently agreeing to be slaves.
Daily temperature tests indeed.
They can fuck right off.
Vaccines are meant to be our way out of this. Not a tunnel into ever more restrictions and controls.
If any of that were to happen, then I agree entirely they can fuck off. And I would quit the party again, as I quit it the last time we had an authoritarian as party leader.
I simply do not believe it will happen. I might be in denial, but I just don't believe it is possible that will be done.
Restrictions to end 21/6, no ifs no buts. That's my line.
Or what? You will quit the party. Who cares. I quit the party last year and they seem to have managed to put it behind them and are going from strength to strength.
Absolutely, but that's what I can do.
HYUFD likes to take pride in the fact that he has a 100% Tory voting record and I don't, but as far as I'm concerned the Party needs to win my vote not the other way around. Three times in my life I've not voted Conservative: 2001 (Labour with a pinched nose), 2002 or 2003 local elections (Lib Dem) and 2019 European Parliament (Brexit with a very pinched nose). When that's happened the party has changed not long after to improve.
If the Conservatives become authoritarian then I will vote Lib Dem or some other party. That's all I can do.
I was idly mulling over how the pandemic would have been if it had happened whilst May was PM. I suspect that - given her track record at the Home Office - we would have been locked down tighter than a nun's chuff. And would have been coming out of that lockdown about 2025.
The problems we have with Boris is his reluctance to bow to the inevitable closures and lockdowns because, yes it buggers the economy, but also because it affronts his innate liberal sensibilities. I honestly can't see him locking us down a day longer than he thinks he can without being held responsible for a third wave.
Alex*, 12, a dual heritage pupil at a school in Bristol, had been in year 7 for less than two weeks when he was wrongly accused by a teacher of having stolen cookies from the canteen at lunchtime.
At first he was told off by a teacher. But then the teacher asked a police officer based at the school to speak to him too.
When the officer spoke to Alex, they are alleged to have told him he wouldn’t be taken down to the police station on this occasion. Alex says he was also warned that he did not want to get a criminal record in the future and if he did, he would be unable to travel to the US.
“My heart was beating really fast. I felt scared, and I’ve never felt like that before,” Alex said, describing the moment he was spoken to by the officer.
The next day, Alex’s mother was contacted by the school regarding what had happened. When she found out her son had been spoken to by a police officer, she was “absolutely furious”.
“I was incredibly angry that my son has been interviewed by a police officer without a parent being present. To me, it was just completely over-the-top, completely heavy-handed and completely incorrectly handled.
“My son was petrified, and he was very upset as a result. I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way.
“This was a terrifying episode for my son, which led to him being too anxious to attend school for a number of months.”
After she approached the school for an explanation, the school launched an investigation into the incident. The mother also sent a complaint to Avon and Somerset police.
In written correspondence from the school’s deputy headteacher to the mother, seen by the Guardian, an investigation into the incident concluded that “there was no evidence that Alex had stolen cookies as he did pay for them immediately upon being asked to do so”, and the teacher “should not have jumped to the conclusion that he had stolen them”.
The letter said Alex was in the queue with another student who had stolen something earlier, and that “the two incidents [were] conflated as one, which was not appropriate”.
It added that the teacher who had spoken to Alex had “presumed” his guilt as a consequence.
Furthermore, the school said the police officer should not have been involved in the incident. Although the letter states that the manner of the meeting between Alex and the officer was “not confrontational”, the conclusion was that “it was inappropriate for this conversation to be had with Alex in the first place as there is no evidence that he had stolen”.
Still never let the police never complain about them being under resourced if they have the resources to investigate things like this.
Well, over-reach obviously and daft to get the officer involved (although this seems to be more of a 'personal chat' than official police work, using the police officer was clearly intended to cause some fear/add weight).
However, this bit that really stood out for me was: "I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way" So, not hard to believe that they'd do this to a black pupil from one of the scummy areas? And that would be ok?
Amid all the excitability on here this morning, I find myself in the extraordinary position of agreeing with the government road map (although I don't agree with the 6-month extension to the legislation, and think Labour should have opposed it). I don't actually think either the government or scientists are looking for 'excuses' to extend restrictions.
The road map up to June 21 is cautious but sensible. It's only a couple of months ago that around 1k people were dying each day of Covid in the UK: we forget too quickly, as we did last summer. Things are looking really good now, data-wise, but why jeopardise this by rushing too much? Yes, vaccines - but there's plenty of evidence that younger, unvaccinated people can suffer very badly from the disease if it spreads quickly.
So why the impatience? If the data keeps heading the way it is, then I will be the first to complain if the dates for restrictions being lifted are delayed for spurious reasons. But I'm happy to wait until that happens (or doesn't) before I rail against the restrictions to liberties.
Meanwhile, by May/June we'll have a much better idea of what's happening in the rest of Europe and the consequences of that for international travel. I'm optimistic that a combination of restrictions and vaccines in most of Europe will lead to a similar pattern of data as in the UK, just a couple of months behind.
I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation of the excitability on here. While some people are getting impatient, my impression is most on here at least accept the roadmap as not totally unreasonable, even if they think things should be faster.
What's causing 'excitement' is the floating in the media of various suggestions that restrictions such as social distancing should go on past 21 June.
FPT - The Liberal Democrats voting against the extension of the Covid Act is very significant - they should be doing much more of that if they want to be more relevant in future: advocating liberalism.
Would that make me more likely to vote for them?
Yes.
Me too. It's about time we had a party in this country that understands what a liberal democracy is and what it should and should not do.
As expected when I was poo-poohed on here yesterday over the direction of travel re vax passports, it now looks as if the government is not going to lift any restrictions at all post June but continue them in another guise. Social distancing will continue unless you can produce proof that you're healthy.
And how are hospitality venues supposed to comply with this? Ah yes - ask for proof. Very well and when some council busybody or policeman comes in to ask for proof of this how are they supposed to provide it? By showing the records they've kept, maybe? Great. Go to a pub and ask them to keep medical info about you safely.
The NHS is not overwhelmed. Deaths and cases are down significantly and continuing to decrease. Vaccinations continue. These were meant to be the data points to rely on. Now the government is tearing these up and just introducing their own version of China's social credit system. Well, stuff that.
Yes, and the extension of the virus laws until September doesn't inspire any confidence that the government will ever give up these powers. Labour are equally to blame IMO, they've barely said anything about it and have voted in favour each time despite enough Tory MPs potentially willing to make the government pay attention and slim down the measures now that we're in the final stages of it.
You're going to hate the comparison but this is what it felt like being a leave supporter from 2016-2019 watching a majority of MPs try and find a way to override democracy. The whole "well the people voted for something but there's no majority in the house" attitude has come back. There's a powerlessness that I can't stand as this whole thing is starting to feel like a stitch up between government and opposition to deny us basic freedoms.
I don't hate the comparison at all. If anything it's worse than you say. Then some MPs were trying to ignore a democratic vote. This time people have voted for this useless shower of authoritarians.
People are obsessing about flags and singing Britons never shall be slaves at the Proms while obediently agreeing to be slaves.
Daily temperature tests indeed.
They can fuck right off.
Vaccines are meant to be our way out of this. Not a tunnel into ever more restrictions and controls.
If any of that were to happen, then I agree entirely they can fuck off. And I would quit the party again, as I quit it the last time we had an authoritarian as party leader.
I simply do not believe it will happen. I might be in denial, but I just don't believe it is possible that will be done.
Restrictions to end 21/6, no ifs no buts. That's my line.
Or what? You will quit the party. Who cares. I quit the party last year and they seem to have managed to put it behind them and are going from strength to strength.
Absolutely, but that's what I can do.
HYUFD likes to take pride in the fact that he has a 100% Tory voting record and I don't, but as far as I'm concerned the Party needs to win my vote not the other way around. Three times in my life I've not voted Conservative: 2001 (Labour with a pinched nose), 2002 or 2003 local elections (Lib Dem) and 2019 European Parliament (Brexit with a very pinched nose). When that's happened the party has changed not long after to improve.
If the Conservatives become authoritarian then I will vote Lib Dem or some other party. That's all I can do.
I was idly mulling over how the pandemic would have been if it had happened whilst May was PM. I suspect that - given her track record at the Home Office - we would have been locked down tighter than a nun's chuff. And would have been coming out of that lockdown about 2025.
The problems we have with Boris is his reluctance to bow to the inevitable closures and lockdowns because, yes it buggers the economy, but also because it affronts his innate liberal sensibilities. I honestly can't see him locking us down a day longer than he thinks he can without being held responsible for a third wave.
Yep, on not delaying opening up - and on that only - I'm glad we've got Johnson as PM.
Amid all the excitability on here this morning, I find myself in the extraordinary position of agreeing with the government road map (although I don't agree with the 6-month extension to the legislation, and think Labour should have opposed it). I don't actually think either the government or scientists are looking for 'excuses' to extend restrictions.
The road map up to June 21 is cautious but sensible. It's only a couple of months ago that around 1k people were dying each day of Covid in the UK: we forget too quickly, as we did last summer. Things are looking really good now, data-wise, but why jeopardise this by rushing too much? Yes, vaccines - but there's plenty of evidence that younger, unvaccinated people can suffer very badly from the disease if it spreads quickly.
So why the impatience? If the data keeps heading the way it is, then I will be the first to complain if the dates for restrictions being lifted are delayed for spurious reasons. But I'm happy to wait until that happens (or doesn't) before I rail against the restrictions to liberties.
Meanwhile, by May/June we'll have a much better idea of what's happening in the rest of Europe and the consequences of that for international travel. I'm optimistic that a combination of restrictions and vaccines in most of Europe will lead to a similar pattern of data as in the UK, just a couple of months behind.
I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation of the excitability on here. While some people are getting impatient, my impression is most on here at least accept the roadmap as not totally unreasonable, even if they think things should be faster.
What's causing 'excitement' is the floating in the media of various suggestions that restrictions such as social distancing should go on past 21 June.
And the new laws extending the C Act to September.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
Bullshit.
Putting up images of a religious nature is entirely appropriate for RE.
They shouldn't be apologising, be better to make it part of the curriculum for all schools.
A relative of mine has a image of the... gentlemen in question on his mantlepiece.
He bought it in a gift shop attached to a major mosque in Tehran.
It is rather interesting - almost Byzantine in the style. A small icon painted tin wood, with a gold leaf halo etc.
Would showing that to an RE class be appropriate?
Wait a minute, I understood the Batley image was one of the Hebdo Mohammed cartoons. Have you seen them? They are entirely without any artistic, intellectual, humorous or any other kind of merit. They are just crude rubbish whose only purpose is to insult people. Putting it on the school curriculum would be a great recruiting tool for islamist extremists.
Just talking to a friend in Bangkok who owns a restaurant chain. She says 50% of BKK hotels are entirely shut. The rest have about ‘10% occupancy’
She reckons much of the country’s tourist infrastructure is gone for good
When this ends we will be like the bomb shelterers in Slaughterhouse 5, emerging after the firestorm
When I was in Bangkok I got the impression most of the locals disliked tourists but were totally reliant on them for most of their economic activity. Not an original observation, I acknowledge.
As an aside, RE/RS was my favourite subject at school. I had an excellent teacher, who was also a lay preacher (Methodist) but who wasn't afraid to point out inconsistencies or suchlike in Christianity (like the gospels being deliberately written to persuade people rather than historical texts).
Well, over-reach obviously and daft to get the officer involved (although this seems to be more of a 'personal chat' than official police work, using the police officer was clearly intended to cause some fear/add weight).
However, this bit that really stood out for me was: "I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way" So, not hard to believe that they'd do this to a black pupil from one of the scummy areas? And that would be ok?
It said the pupil was dual heritage, so presumably non-white. The point they're making is it shouldn't have happened to a black/minority pupil from a scummy area because it wouldn't happen to a middle class white one. The opposite of how you're reading it.
Mr. JS, it's the same sort of people who think abolishing cash is a smart idea.
I would also like to give the Lib Dems some rare praise for their stance on this.
Stockholm Syndrome is rubbish.
Abolishing cash is a great idea.
It would also be a great victory in the war on drugs.
Simple rule: if you can't choose to live and exist without a smartphone (even if it's less convenient, and a tad more expensive) then you're not really free.
Abolishing cash would be like abolishing books.
Of course you're free, smartphones give you even more liberty.
Lockdown has been a challenge yet thanks to technology I've been able to talk to friends all over the world for nothing.
Would you prefer to contact them via post?
Smartphone's are a personal tracking device, plus they need power and juice to work.
I always want to have an off-the-grid option. And, yes, many friends are touched with a personal letter - we all don't write enough of them.
I am a man of letters.
I'm talking about the friend going through a rough spell in Ireland, our WhatsApp group, as well individually, can give him immediate support in a way a letter cannot.
A smartphone allows me to do things quicker and easier, allowing me more quality time.
I'm not saying smartphones aren't convenient or useful but I don't want them to take over the world and be the only way one can live.
Thankfully, I'm not alone. Kindles were all the rage a few years ago but a lot of people have now gone back to proper traditional books now and I think that balance is healthy.
It used to be a huge pain - taking up to a dozen books on a plane (yes, really - when flying to Hong Kong there is a lot of reading to be done). And on the tube. Kindles were a blessing. Now, I generally prefer books. Some demand to be in book form (The Mirror & The Light, The Testaments, etc).
Me the same. I love the feel of books, unread and half read. Scattered across the bed.
Apparently Mao was the same. Had a huge bed, but when it wasn’t also occupied by teenage dancing girls it was stacked with books, which he would read until 3pm. Then finally rise. I am very similar tho I try not to starve Manchuria
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
With the greatest respect, you do not understand what a theocracy means. Our laws are not based on the precepts of a religion as, say, in Iran. We are a secular state where laws are passed by the government of the day and are not based on or constrained by or drafted according to the precepts of any religion. People are free to follow whatever religion they want or none at all. We abolished blasphemy laws a while back and don't bloody well need them reintroduced by the back door because of the threats from bullies.
Using cash is a good way to pretend you're living somewhere you aren't or that you aren't living somewhere you are.
It isn't a good idea to have only one way of doing things, unless you're an authoritarian. I deliberately use 50% card and 50% cash as much as possible.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
Add also the point that it's only the state-approved sect which has unelected clerics in the Parliament. Just because Henry VIII etc. And that this de jure arrangement is ferociously defended by one, and only one, political party. Hard on you if you are a RC, Muslim, JK, FCS(C), or NR of course, etc.
As an aside, RE/RS was my favourite subject at school. I had an excellent teacher, who was also a lay preacher (Methodist) but who wasn't afraid to point out inconsistencies or suchlike in Christianity (like the gospels being deliberately written to persuade people rather than historical texts).
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions, not bluntly insulting them.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
Disagree there, I think learning to think rationally around your religion is part of RE.
And co-existing with other opinions is also important - particularly for religions with totalitarian claims (which is mainly Islam and Christianity).
It also legitimate, for example, to expect Christian children to consider Islam's (blasphemous to orthodex Xians) claims around eg the claim that Christ did not die on the Cross.
Potentially thorny stuff, which is why it is unacceptable not to address.
I would suggest tackling such questions with a small panel in a double period.
The Motoons were acceptable in an Eqyptian tabloid newspaper months before those Imams ran their trouble-making campaign around the ME, so they are acceptable to show in class in the UK.
The only thing more shocking in the last 24 hours than the Covid law extension is Pete Doherty's moobs.
He looks like an obese Paul Merton.
Oooh you just made me dirty myself by going on MailOnline to look at the pics. Well at least the moobs, gut and various chins tell you he's off the smack.
FPT - The Liberal Democrats voting against the extension of the Covid Act is very significant - they should be doing much more of that if they want to be more relevant in future: advocating liberalism.
Would that make me more likely to vote for them?
Yes.
Me too. It's about time we had a party in this country that understands what a liberal democracy is and what it should and should not do.
As expected when I was poo-poohed on here yesterday over the direction of travel re vax passports, it now looks as if the government is not going to lift any restrictions at all post June but continue them in another guise. Social distancing will continue unless you can produce proof that you're healthy.
And how are hospitality venues supposed to comply with this? Ah yes - ask for proof. Very well and when some council busybody or policeman comes in to ask for proof of this how are they supposed to provide it? By showing the records they've kept, maybe? Great. Go to a pub and ask them to keep medical info about you safely.
The NHS is not overwhelmed. Deaths and cases are down significantly and continuing to decrease. Vaccinations continue. These were meant to be the data points to rely on. Now the government is tearing these up and just introducing their own version of China's social credit system. Well, stuff that.
Yes, and the extension of the virus laws until September doesn't inspire any confidence that the government will ever give up these powers. Labour are equally to blame IMO, they've barely said anything about it and have voted in favour each time despite enough Tory MPs potentially willing to make the government pay attention and slim down the measures now that we're in the final stages of it.
You're going to hate the comparison but this is what it felt like being a leave supporter from 2016-2019 watching a majority of MPs try and find a way to override democracy. The whole "well the people voted for something but there's no majority in the house" attitude has come back. There's a powerlessness that I can't stand as this whole thing is starting to feel like a stitch up between government and opposition to deny us basic freedoms.
I don't hate the comparison at all. If anything it's worse than you say. Then some MPs were trying to ignore a democratic vote. This time people have voted for this useless shower of authoritarians.
People are obsessing about flags and singing Britons never shall be slaves at the Proms while obediently agreeing to be slaves.
Daily temperature tests indeed.
They can fuck right off.
Vaccines are meant to be our way out of this. Not a tunnel into ever more restrictions and controls.
If any of that were to happen, then I agree entirely they can fuck off. And I would quit the party again, as I quit it the last time we had an authoritarian as party leader.
I simply do not believe it will happen. I might be in denial, but I just don't believe it is possible that will be done.
Restrictions to end 21/6, no ifs no buts. That's my line.
Or what? You will quit the party. Who cares. I quit the party last year and they seem to have managed to put it behind them and are going from strength to strength.
Absolutely, but that's what I can do.
HYUFD likes to take pride in the fact that he has a 100% Tory voting record and I don't, but as far as I'm concerned the Party needs to win my vote not the other way around. Three times in my life I've not voted Conservative: 2001 (Labour with a pinched nose), 2002 or 2003 local elections (Lib Dem) and 2019 European Parliament (Brexit with a very pinched nose). When that's happened the party has changed not long after to improve.
If the Conservatives become authoritarian then I will vote Lib Dem or some other party. That's all I can do.
I was idly mulling over how the pandemic would have been if it had happened whilst May was PM. I suspect that - given her track record at the Home Office - we would have been locked down tighter than a nun's chuff. And would have been coming out of that lockdown about 2025.
The problems we have with Boris is his reluctance to bow to the inevitable closures and lockdowns because, yes it buggers the economy, but also because it affronts his innate liberal sensibilities. I honestly can't see him locking us down a day longer than he thinks he can without being held responsible for a third wave.
Absolutely agreed.
I made a similar remark last year when someone said it was a shame we had Boris as PM for this as he doesn't want to do lockdowns so is doing them late. Frankly I'm glad we have someone who doesn't want to do it and would rather we enter a lockdown "late" than unnecessarily.
The concept of lockdown goes against every part of my philosophy. I have never agreed with it philosophically. If its going to be done because we have no alternative, then I'd far rather it be done because someone who doesn't want to do it thinks we have tried every other option and have no alternative than because its the first thing someone authoritarian chooses to do.
Even if that results in a "worse" outcome. Taking away fundamental liberties unnecessarily doesn't justify a better outcome - and that is why domestic lockdown should be ending now. We're past the last resort point, end this now.
The ultimate end of the 'precautionary principle' was demonstrated to me yesterday.
My elderly father lives on his own and is shielding. The neighbouring property on one side is let to the council for respite care (adults with Downs syndrome I think).
There was a new (apparently) social worker in yesterday and he noticed that the overflow from my dad's cistern was dripping into the driveway for some time (an hour or two). He went round and knocked on the door. Now, it was only 9am and he's often asleep at that time, and he's also deaf so he never hears anyone. Naturally, there was no response.
At this point the 'precautionary principle' kicks in.
30 minutes later and there is a fireman bashing the door in. 2 paramedics and 2 police wade into his living room, where he's sat watching 'Tales of the Unexpected' and now distressed. He rings me to tell me "there's 4 police in my house". Shielding, remember.
I'm not quite sure where this chain of madness could have been broken. The social worker could have looked in the contact book and found my name, the paramedics could have looked on the vulnerable person list and found my name, the police could have checked the registration of the car in his driveway and found my name, or they could have crossed the street and asked another neighbour who could have found my name.
But none of this happened. Because they were all afraid of allowing something 'bad' to happen.
If they'd waited about 60 minutes I would have been round for a morning visit.
I'd criticise the government for not locking down early enough for Covid, but not opening up soon enough because of that criticism would be much worse.
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
On this, we disagree (I suspect due to our personal values). I don't have a problem with our democratically elected government restricting our freedoms for the greater good on a time limited basis in response to a particular threat. The "greater good" is, I know, the dangerous bit of that.
I know you don't like WW2 analogies But in WW2 we had ID cards and you could be prevented from using lights as you wished in your own home. For a particular threat, on a time limited basis that, to me, was justified. As soon as war was over, both had to go forthwith.
Cyclefree points out that the Covid legislation was not needed, due to existing powers. That freaks me out, not the passing of time limited powers in response to a public health emergency, but the apparent fact that this could all have been done without passing those powers.
It does very much feel like there's goal post shifting going on. I've hated lockdown. It's impacted on my mental health, my career progression, every aspect of life in a negative way. My wedding reception was about 15 of us eating takeaway pizza in a park (admittedly that wasn't so bad). I've been relatively lucky in that I at least own my own property and have a secure job.
I would be entirely happy to take my chances with the disease. Obviously I'd rather not catch it, but I'm young, fit and can assess risk for myself. Despite that, I do believe in responsibility to society and accepted restrictions on my basic freedoms to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system and benefit the more vulnerable.
Now every time I see comfortable older people talking about longer term restrictions or health officials saying things like 'social distancing is a low cost measure' it makes my blood boil. I've also found I've started having mild anxiety attacks at some of the pronouncements in the media.
I don't expect any particular sympathy, but I do find the way some people seem to be thinking hugely disturbing. If the government does try to keep social distancing or put in a new lockdown-lite next winter, I'm rapidly going to become a single issue voter.
Totally agree with you mate, the way the older generation fail to appreciate the sacrifices of young people is a constant stream of shite they continue to send our way. The idea that social distancing is a "low cost" measure is ridiculous. It will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race as how the hell is any single person supposed to meet anyone without breaking the idiotic social distancing rules.
You see it here all the time with long term measures proposed by older posters presented as this non-issue that everyone should simply accept for the greater good. Well fuck that and if it turns out that Nige is the only one opposing it then I'll have to vote for Nige.
This oldie is with you all the way. Let the frightened shielders stay home. Once we are all vaxxed life must resume and the young must live and love. Otherwise what’s the point? Surely we did all this FOR the young. To protect civilisation - so it can endure, and thrive. Not go into a permanent twilight. A kind of lockdown narnia-in-winter
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
We have never needed the Coronavirus Act, as I have argued above and below the line, ad nauseam. The Civil Contingencies Act - itself an authoritarian piece of legislation - provides all the powers needed. The only reason for the Coronavirus Act is to avoid any scrutiny of the government. By passing it MPs rendered themselves irrelevant.
A bit bloody late for them to be complaining now.
IMO it’s to the government’s credit that they’ve spent the last year without reference to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
They’ve proved it can can safely be repealed.
The Civil Contingencies Act is a bad law. But in one respect it is miles better than the Coronavirus Act because it allows for much more and regular scrutiny by Parliament. The Coronavirus Act does not to anything like the same extent. That is why the government brought it in. It did not need it. It wanted to - because like much else with this government it wanted as little scrutiny as possible.
The idea that Boris is some sort of instinctive libertarian who is doing this stuff reluctantly is for the birds, frankly. From the start - well before Covid - this government has sought to take powers to itself and limit or avoid as much as possible any sort of scrutiny or checks on its powers or what it does with them.
Just had a 62 year old friend's 36 year old daughter get the jab in the UK. The friend lives in Belgium and has no idea when she's getting the jab (and in the UK would be called "medically vulnerable").
Well, over-reach obviously and daft to get the officer involved (although this seems to be more of a 'personal chat' than official police work, using the police officer was clearly intended to cause some fear/add weight).
However, this bit that really stood out for me was: "I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way" So, not hard to believe that they'd do this to a black pupil from one of the scummy areas? And that would be ok?
It said the pupil was dual heritage, so presumably non-white. The point they're making is it shouldn't have happened to a black/minority pupil from a scummy area because it wouldn't happen to a middle class white one. The opposite of how you're reading it.
Ah yes. Well, I failed reading comprehension, didn't I?
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
This is a government which does not fundamentally believe in the principles underlying liberal democracy, let alone that they are categorical imperatives.
I have been boring on - and no doubt boring everyone on here - about this for some time.
The last thing you do is bore anyone
Your posts are very welcome and you and your family have been greatly affected by covid and all the restrictions
It is rather unfair in some ways as my wife and I live in a lovely home with south facing garden within 100yards of the sea and views of the mountains behind. We do not want for anything and as pensioners (77 and 81) who have travelled round the world many times and undertaken lots of cruises, we are now content not to want to travel anymore
Apart from out eldest son and his wife in Vancouver, all the rest of our family including our four grandchildren live close by and we have had both our Pfizer vaccinations
It is therefore at times that we feel somewhat guilty that we are so fortunate and can understand the agonies, frustration, fears and anger of so many and all we can do is pray that this covid crisis eases for everyone as per the roadmap and nobody is restricted from their freedoms one minute more than is necessary
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
Add also the point that it's only the state-approved sect which has unelected clerics in the Parliament. Just because Henry VIII etc. And that this de jure arrangement is ferociously defended by one, and only one, political party. Hard on you if you are a RC, Muslim, JK, FCS(C), or NR of course, etc.
Indeed, Fidei Defensor and all that jazz.
We really need some members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the House of Lords.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
Bullshit.
Putting up images of a religious nature is entirely appropriate for RE.
They shouldn't be apologising, be better to make it part of the curriculum for all schools.
A relative of mine has a image of the... gentlemen in question on his mantlepiece.
He bought it in a gift shop attached to a major mosque in Tehran.
It is rather interesting - almost Byzantine in the style. A small icon painted tin wood, with a gold leaf halo etc.
Would showing that to an RE class be appropriate?
Yes. RE shouldn't just be propaganda for the religion in question.
You are going to put yourself in the Shite vs Shia.... interaction?
Some people actually find the above *more* offensive than the cartoons. Because it suggests that their Way isn't the Only Way.
Absolutely learning about sects and differences should be part of a well rounded education.
If you want to learn about your own religion as the One True Path that should be done in your own Church/Temple/Mosque etc not as part of an education.
"Covid levels are now so low in Britain that the Prime Minister could have proclaimed the second wave over yesterday. Instead, he asked for his Government’s emergency powers to be extended for another six months. Why, if there is no longer an emergency? Sir Keir Starmer didn’t ask."
"at the heart of this is a question of what kind of country we are – and whether liberal Britain became a casualty of the pandemic."
Are people at last going to wake up? The threat to liberal democracy is far more serious than the threat of the virus itself. In my view this was always the case.
It was only 6 months ago that Johnson, when asked why covid rates were higher in the UK than in Germany, said this: "Actually there is an important difference between our country and many other countries around the world, that is that our country is a freedom-loving country"
I don't know. Where I am there have never been any rules against leaving your house, or going to a park to sit on a bench. Nobody has ever been stopped by the police from buying Easter eggs (did that really happen?). It's not illegal to leave the country. The right to demonstrate is guaranteed in the constitution.
Where are you?
Germany.
Puts things in perspective, compared to say the behaviour of Derbyshire police, who fined people for travelling 5 miles to walk round a reservoir.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
Add also the point that it's only the state-approved sect which has unelected clerics in the Parliament. Just because Henry VIII etc. And that this de jure arrangement is ferociously defended by one, and only one, political party. Hard on you if you are a RC, Muslim, JK, FCS(C), or NR of course, etc.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
Add also the point that it's only the state-approved sect which has unelected clerics in the Parliament. Just because Henry VIII etc. And that this de jure arrangement is ferociously defended by one, and only one, political party. Hard on you if you are a RC, Muslim, JK, FCS(C), or NR of course, etc.
To be fair on Henry VIII - the clerics were there in the Lords long before he was born.
The dilution of the Lords with increasing number of secular peers, and the reaction of the ecclesiastics to it, is an interesting side story that doesn't get looked at very often.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
We are not a theocracy as UK law is not based primarily on the Bible as law in Iran is based primarily on the Koran (much as it also is in Saudi Arabia for example even if a different branch of Islam).
Before the monarch was head of our established church after the Reformation, the Pope was head of our established church, the Pope is still Head of State of the Vatican City so we have always had a head of state as head of our Church. The Bishops make up less than 5% of the Lords and are highly educated, 85% of Bishops went to Oxbridge compared to 38% of the Lords as a whole so I have no problem if we continue to have an appointed upper house in keeping some representatives of the established church there. The Chief Rabbi is also in the Lords too and I would have no problem with a few Imams and Hindu Priests etc being members as well.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
That's a bit like saying we're a military dictatorship because the Queen is Colonel-in-Chief of the Scots Dragoons.
I hope you never have to live in a real theocracy.
The EU picking a fight with AZ was bizarre given we've only imported a million doses from the EU plants total I think - so proportionately our share from their output is less than their own....
Now Pfizer, J&J and Novavax are going to be ultracautious wrt anything EU related.
Heart of stone and stuff.
Pfizer rejected the EU position last night
The EU have done untold damage to their pharmaceutical industries, and many others will be wary of investment in the EU
Have they? Where do you get your inside information?
Pfizer publicly said that the EU plans were unhelpful.
That’s a massively diplomatic answer, worthy of Sir Humphrey.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
Bullshit.
Putting up images of a religious nature is entirely appropriate for RE.
They shouldn't be apologising, be better to make it part of the curriculum for all schools.
A relative of mine has a image of the... gentlemen in question on his mantlepiece.
He bought it in a gift shop attached to a major mosque in Tehran.
It is rather interesting - almost Byzantine in the style. A small icon painted tin wood, with a gold leaf halo etc.
Would showing that to an RE class be appropriate?
Wait a minute, I understood the Batley image was one of the Hebdo Mohammed cartoons. Have you seen them? They are entirely without any artistic, intellectual, humorous or any other kind of merit. They are just crude rubbish whose only purpose is to insult people. Putting it on the school curriculum would be a great recruiting tool for islamist extremists.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
That's a bit like saying we're a military dictatorship because the Queen is Colonel-in-Chief of the Scots Dragoons.
I hope you never have to live in a real theocracy.
With Boris Johnson's defence cuts I do not worry about the UK being a military dictatorship anytime soon.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
Add also the point that it's only the state-approved sect which has unelected clerics in the Parliament. Just because Henry VIII etc. And that this de jure arrangement is ferociously defended by one, and only one, political party. Hard on you if you are a RC, Muslim, JK, FCS(C), or NR of course, etc.
Like the Lords, it works.
I like its role but not the way it is appointed. Even the hereditary principle would be marginally better than the corrupt system of place men we have at the moment.
Alex*, 12, a dual heritage pupil at a school in Bristol, had been in year 7 for less than two weeks when he was wrongly accused by a teacher of having stolen cookies from the canteen at lunchtime.
At first he was told off by a teacher. But then the teacher asked a police officer based at the school to speak to him too.
When the officer spoke to Alex, they are alleged to have told him he wouldn’t be taken down to the police station on this occasion. Alex says he was also warned that he did not want to get a criminal record in the future and if he did, he would be unable to travel to the US.
“My heart was beating really fast. I felt scared, and I’ve never felt like that before,” Alex said, describing the moment he was spoken to by the officer.
The next day, Alex’s mother was contacted by the school regarding what had happened. When she found out her son had been spoken to by a police officer, she was “absolutely furious”.
“I was incredibly angry that my son has been interviewed by a police officer without a parent being present. To me, it was just completely over-the-top, completely heavy-handed and completely incorrectly handled.
“My son was petrified, and he was very upset as a result. I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way.
“This was a terrifying episode for my son, which led to him being too anxious to attend school for a number of months.”
After she approached the school for an explanation, the school launched an investigation into the incident. The mother also sent a complaint to Avon and Somerset police.
In written correspondence from the school’s deputy headteacher to the mother, seen by the Guardian, an investigation into the incident concluded that “there was no evidence that Alex had stolen cookies as he did pay for them immediately upon being asked to do so”, and the teacher “should not have jumped to the conclusion that he had stolen them”.
The letter said Alex was in the queue with another student who had stolen something earlier, and that “the two incidents [were] conflated as one, which was not appropriate”.
It added that the teacher who had spoken to Alex had “presumed” his guilt as a consequence.
Furthermore, the school said the police officer should not have been involved in the incident. Although the letter states that the manner of the meeting between Alex and the officer was “not confrontational”, the conclusion was that “it was inappropriate for this conversation to be had with Alex in the first place as there is no evidence that he had stolen”.
Still never let the police never complain about them being under resourced if they have the resources to investigate things like this.
What a load of guardianista bollocks. Exactly this happened regularly to white kids in rural England decades ago. I know, because it happened to me, and several friends
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
It works, it’s good, it’s sensible.
This new Guardian campaign against ‘racist British schools’ is as desperate as it is disgraceful. This paper is drowning. God knows what their ad income is
Just had a 62 year old friend's 36 year old daughter get the jab in the UK. The friend lives in Belgium and has no idea when she's getting the jab (and in the UK would be called "medically vulnerable").
Are we doing non-vulnerable 36 year olds? Blimey. Hope the NHS has saved enough for the millions of second doses coming up in April.
The EU picking a fight with AZ was bizarre given we've only imported a million doses from the EU plants total I think - so proportionately our share from their output is less than their own....
Now Pfizer, J&J and Novavax are going to be ultracautious wrt anything EU related.
Heart of stone and stuff.
Pfizer rejected the EU position last night
The EU have done untold damage to their pharmaceutical industries, and many others will be wary of investment in the EU
Have they? Where do you get your inside information?
Pfizer publicly said that the EU plans were unhelpful.
That’s a massively diplomatic answer, worthy of Sir Humphrey.
Yes - it was a very sensible intervention. I was surprised that they made one, all the same. I think it shows just how dangerous they judged the situation to be.
Alex*, 12, a dual heritage pupil at a school in Bristol, had been in year 7 for less than two weeks when he was wrongly accused by a teacher of having stolen cookies from the canteen at lunchtime.
At first he was told off by a teacher. But then the teacher asked a police officer based at the school to speak to him too.
When the officer spoke to Alex, they are alleged to have told him he wouldn’t be taken down to the police station on this occasion. Alex says he was also warned that he did not want to get a criminal record in the future and if he did, he would be unable to travel to the US.
“My heart was beating really fast. I felt scared, and I’ve never felt like that before,” Alex said, describing the moment he was spoken to by the officer.
The next day, Alex’s mother was contacted by the school regarding what had happened. When she found out her son had been spoken to by a police officer, she was “absolutely furious”.
“I was incredibly angry that my son has been interviewed by a police officer without a parent being present. To me, it was just completely over-the-top, completely heavy-handed and completely incorrectly handled.
“My son was petrified, and he was very upset as a result. I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way.
“This was a terrifying episode for my son, which led to him being too anxious to attend school for a number of months.”
After she approached the school for an explanation, the school launched an investigation into the incident. The mother also sent a complaint to Avon and Somerset police.
In written correspondence from the school’s deputy headteacher to the mother, seen by the Guardian, an investigation into the incident concluded that “there was no evidence that Alex had stolen cookies as he did pay for them immediately upon being asked to do so”, and the teacher “should not have jumped to the conclusion that he had stolen them”.
The letter said Alex was in the queue with another student who had stolen something earlier, and that “the two incidents [were] conflated as one, which was not appropriate”.
It added that the teacher who had spoken to Alex had “presumed” his guilt as a consequence.
Furthermore, the school said the police officer should not have been involved in the incident. Although the letter states that the manner of the meeting between Alex and the officer was “not confrontational”, the conclusion was that “it was inappropriate for this conversation to be had with Alex in the first place as there is no evidence that he had stolen”.
Still never let the police never complain about them being under resourced if they have the resources to investigate things like this.
What a load of guardianista bollocks. Exactly this happened regularly to white kids in rural England decades ago. I know, because it happened to me, and several friends
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
It works, it’s good, it’s sensible.
So you never went off the rails at all when you were older? 🤔 😉
Mr. JS, it's the same sort of people who think abolishing cash is a smart idea.
I would also like to give the Lib Dems some rare praise for their stance on this.
Stockholm Syndrome is rubbish.
Abolishing cash is a great idea.
It would also be a great victory in the war on drugs.
Simple rule: if you can't choose to live and exist without a smartphone (even if it's less convenient, and a tad more expensive) then you're not really free.
Abolishing cash would be like abolishing books.
Of course you're free, smartphones give you even more liberty.
Lockdown has been a challenge yet thanks to technology I've been able to talk to friends all over the world for nothing.
Would you prefer to contact them via post?
Smartphone's are a personal tracking device, plus they need power and juice to work.
I always want to have an off-the-grid option. And, yes, many friends are touched with a personal letter - we all don't write enough of them.
I am a man of letters.
I'm talking about the friend going through a rough spell in Ireland, our WhatsApp group, as well individually, can give him immediate support in a way a letter cannot.
A smartphone allows me to do things quicker and easier, allowing me more quality time.
I'm not saying smartphones aren't convenient or useful but I don't want them to take over the world and be the only way one can live.
Thankfully, I'm not alone. Kindles were all the rage a few years ago but a lot of people have now gone back to proper traditional books now and I think that balance is healthy.
It used to be a huge pain - taking up to a dozen books on a plane (yes, really - when flying to Hong Kong there is a lot of reading to be done). And on the tube. Kindles were a blessing. Now, I generally prefer books. Some demand to be in book form (The Mirror & The Light, The Testaments, etc).
Me the same. I love the feel of books, unread and half read. Scattered across the bed.
Apparently Mao was the same. Had a huge bed, but when it wasn’t also occupied by teenage dancing girls it was stacked with books, which he would read until 3pm. Then finally rise. I am very similar tho I try not to starve Manchuria
I too love the feel of books, but sadly the way my eyes are going it's much easier to use the Kindle app with the text big enough for someone with normal vision to read it from about half a mile away.
Just had a 62 year old friend's 36 year old daughter get the jab in the UK. The friend lives in Belgium and has no idea when she's getting the jab (and in the UK would be called "medically vulnerable").
Are we doing non-vulnerable 36 year olds? Blimey. Hope the NHS has saved enough for the millions of second doses coming up in April.
as a 49 year old paying close attention to the rules - we are only doing people below 50 if they are vulnerable, carers or NHS workers
TBH I don't think the public is in favour of authoritarian policies, they are pro not catching/dying from Covid-19.
Not surprising after the way the authorities tried to terrify everyone with phrases like "mutant strain" over the last 12 months.
This is, I think, the fourth or fifth human coronavirus we have found. The others cause colds, occasionally with complications. If this one is able to mutate into something vastly more threatening overnight then so should the others. Of course they don’t, they could, but they don’t. None of the variants has shown complete vaccine escape. Sometimes too much information really is a bad thing.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
That's a bit like saying we're a military dictatorship because the Queen is Colonel-in-Chief of the Scots Dragoons.
I hope you never have to live in a real theocracy.
I am now imagining CoE fundamentalism -
"Believe in vague niceness, cups of tea and steam trains! And not mentioned God if you can help it! Otherwise we will hang you from a crane!"
Alex*, 12, a dual heritage pupil at a school in Bristol, had been in year 7 for less than two weeks when he was wrongly accused by a teacher of having stolen cookies from the canteen at lunchtime.
At first he was told off by a teacher. But then the teacher asked a police officer based at the school to speak to him too.
When the officer spoke to Alex, they are alleged to have told him he wouldn’t be taken down to the police station on this occasion. Alex says he was also warned that he did not want to get a criminal record in the future and if he did, he would be unable to travel to the US.
“My heart was beating really fast. I felt scared, and I’ve never felt like that before,” Alex said, describing the moment he was spoken to by the officer.
The next day, Alex’s mother was contacted by the school regarding what had happened. When she found out her son had been spoken to by a police officer, she was “absolutely furious”.
“I was incredibly angry that my son has been interviewed by a police officer without a parent being present. To me, it was just completely over-the-top, completely heavy-handed and completely incorrectly handled.
“My son was petrified, and he was very upset as a result. I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way.
“This was a terrifying episode for my son, which led to him being too anxious to attend school for a number of months.”
After she approached the school for an explanation, the school launched an investigation into the incident. The mother also sent a complaint to Avon and Somerset police.
In written correspondence from the school’s deputy headteacher to the mother, seen by the Guardian, an investigation into the incident concluded that “there was no evidence that Alex had stolen cookies as he did pay for them immediately upon being asked to do so”, and the teacher “should not have jumped to the conclusion that he had stolen them”.
The letter said Alex was in the queue with another student who had stolen something earlier, and that “the two incidents [were] conflated as one, which was not appropriate”.
It added that the teacher who had spoken to Alex had “presumed” his guilt as a consequence.
Furthermore, the school said the police officer should not have been involved in the incident. Although the letter states that the manner of the meeting between Alex and the officer was “not confrontational”, the conclusion was that “it was inappropriate for this conversation to be had with Alex in the first place as there is no evidence that he had stolen”.
Still never let the police never complain about them being under resourced if they have the resources to investigate things like this.
What a load of guardianista bollocks. Exactly this happened regularly to white kids in rural England decades ago. I know, because it happened to me, and several friends
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
It works, it’s good, it’s sensible.
So you never went off the rails at all when you were older? 🤔 😉
It probably delayed my off-the-rails moment by several years, sufficient for me to get good A levels and get into a world class university.
But yeah. Then I crashed off the rails SPECTACULARLY. But by then my education was done
Just had a 62 year old friend's 36 year old daughter get the jab in the UK. The friend lives in Belgium and has no idea when she's getting the jab (and in the UK would be called "medically vulnerable").
Are we doing non-vulnerable 36 year olds? Blimey. Hope the NHS has saved enough for the millions of second doses coming up in April.
as a 49 year old paying close attention to the rules - we are only doing people below 50 if they are vulnerable, carers or NHS workers
I know of one individual where "vulnerable" is doing some heavy lifting, but you'll always have edge cases.
The EU picking a fight with AZ was bizarre given we've only imported a million doses from the EU plants total I think - so proportionately our share from their output is less than their own....
Now Pfizer, J&J and Novavax are going to be ultracautious wrt anything EU related.
Heart of stone and stuff.
Pfizer rejected the EU position last night
The EU have done untold damage to their pharmaceutical industries, and many others will be wary of investment in the EU
Have they? Where do you get your inside information?
Pfizer publicly said that the EU plans were unhelpful.
That’s a massively diplomatic answer, worthy of Sir Humphrey.
Also did not Novavax just refuse to sign a contract with the eu for vaccines
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
This is a government which does not fundamentally believe in the principles underlying liberal democracy, let alone that they are categorical imperatives.
I have been boring on - and no doubt boring everyone on here - about this for some time.
The last thing you do is bore anyone
Your posts are very welcome and you and your family have been greatly affected by covid and all the restrictions
It is rather unfair in some ways as my wife and I live in a lovely home with south facing garden within 100yards of the sea and views of the mountains behind. We do not want for anything and as pensioners (77 and 81) who have travelled round the world many times and undertaken lots of cruises, we are now content not to want to travel anymore
Apart from out eldest son and his wife in Vancouver, all the rest of our family including our four grandchildren live close by and we have had both our Pfizer vaccinations
It is therefore at times that we feel somewhat guilty that we are so fortunate and can understand the agonies, frustration, fears and anger of so many and all we can do is pray that this covid crisis eases for everyone as per the roadmap and nobody is restricted from their freedoms one minute more than is necessary
The problems we have with Boris is his reluctance to bow to the inevitable closures and lockdowns because, yes it buggers the economy, but also because it affronts his innate liberal sensibilities. I honestly can't see him locking us down a day longer than he thinks he can without being held responsible for a third wave.
BoZo's "innate liberal sensibilities" err unswervingly on the side of greater loss of life...
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
This is a government which does not fundamentally believe in the principles underlying liberal democracy, let alone that they are categorical imperatives.
I have been boring on - and no doubt boring everyone on here - about this for some time.
The last thing you do is bore anyone
Your posts are very welcome and you and your family have been greatly affected by covid and all the restrictions
It is rather unfair in some ways as my wife and I live in a lovely home with south facing garden within 100yards of the sea and views of the mountains behind. We do not want for anything and as pensioners (77 and 81) who have travelled round the world many times and undertaken lots of cruises, we are now content not to want to travel anymore
Apart from out eldest son and his wife in Vancouver, all the rest of our family including our four grandchildren live close by and we have had both our Pfizer vaccinations
It is therefore at times that we feel somewhat guilty that we are so fortunate and can understand the agonies, frustration, fears and anger of so many and all we can do is pray that this covid crisis eases for everyone as per the roadmap and nobody is restricted from their freedoms one minute more than is necessary
On topic, there is a tendency on here to paint anything to with election rules as those nasty Republicans looking to disenfranchise voters while the saintly Democrats do their best for justice.
The simple fact is Mike's argument would have a lot more effect if, just once, it was recognised what the Democrats are doing to weight the system in their favour or the actions they took before November were acknowledged. Courts have ruled in several states that Democrat Secretaries of State overstepped their boundaries in changing rules without the authorisation of legislatures that had the proper authority or, as in PA, Democrat-controlled courts giving themselves powers which they didn't have. And that is without getting onto the monstrosity that is HR1, which is a blatant attempt at rigging.
We saw this the other day on Nancy Pelosi's blatant attempts to overturn the IA-2 result and hand the seat to the Democrat loser. People like @rpjs who would wet their pants at the signs of Trump doing anything, come out "well, under the Constitution, the House has the authority to change the result". Yeah? Well, under the Constitution, Republican controlled state legislatures could have sent their own delegates. What would have been the screams on here if the Republican did that and cited the Constitution.
So normally I would look at what Georgia has done and said "this is not the route". But you know what, f**k it, I'm sick of the hypocrisy and preaching so I say bring it on and I hope every Republican state does this sort of thing. It's the only way the Democrats will ever learn.
EU will not be 'blackmailed' over UK vaccine supplies, says French minister
The French are really really pissed at us aren't they
Theyre just being dicks. Macron is pumping the hardline anti-Brit theme to look tough and mask his own and his nations miserable performance.
BoJo should invite Marine Le Pen to Downing street for consultations and then offer to release 30 million doses of vaccine because he has spoken with someone reasonable.
Watching Macron's reaction would provide amusement until the end of Lockdown.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
Add also the point that it's only the state-approved sect which has unelected clerics in the Parliament. Just because Henry VIII etc. And that this de jure arrangement is ferociously defended by one, and only one, political party. Hard on you if you are a RC, Muslim, JK, FCS(C), or NR of course, etc.
To be fair on Henry VIII - the clerics were there in the Lords long before he was born.
The dilution of the Lords with increasing number of secular peers, and the reaction of the ecclesiastics to it, is an interesting side story that doesn't get looked at very often.
Yes, but it was the choice of clerics (so to speak) which he created, and on one side of which he plumped!
That "request" to not let the UK into the CPTPP - do you think is has been screwed up in a ball, or torn to pieces or set on fire?
My friend in Bangkok also said that everyone there was looking at the EU in amazement and horror. By ‘everyone’ she means the English speaking hi-so chattering classes, not tuk-tuk drivers, but still. Quite notable. The lunacy coming out of Brussels is being scrutinized around the world.
She was particularly struck by the EU simultaneously banning yet stealing AZ vaccines.
What a load of guardianista bollocks. Exactly this happened regularly to white kids in rural England decades ago. I know, because it happened to me, and several friends
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
Brady was on TV the other day - first time I've seen him in quite a while. At what point does his postman get a work out?
I'm hoping the threat of a lot letters will bring Boris back to his senses on this one.
I read the other day that one of the ways Johnson likes to run Downing Street policy decisions is to let everyone run away with their various ideas and see through a kind of Darwinian process which kind of survives impact with public/media and so on. Maybe that is what is going on with this covid app idea?
Mr. JS, it's the same sort of people who think abolishing cash is a smart idea.
I would also like to give the Lib Dems some rare praise for their stance on this.
Stockholm Syndrome is rubbish.
Abolishing cash is a great idea.
It would also be a great victory in the war on drugs.
Simple rule: if you can't choose to live and exist without a smartphone (even if it's less convenient, and a tad more expensive) then you're not really free.
Abolishing cash would be like abolishing books.
Of course you're free, smartphones give you even more liberty.
Lockdown has been a challenge yet thanks to technology I've been able to talk to friends all over the world for nothing.
Would you prefer to contact them via post?
Smartphone's are a personal tracking device, plus they need power and juice to work.
I always want to have an off-the-grid option. And, yes, many friends are touched with a personal letter - we all don't write enough of them.
I am a man of letters.
I'm talking about the friend going through a rough spell in Ireland, our WhatsApp group, as well individually, can give him immediate support in a way a letter cannot.
A smartphone allows me to do things quicker and easier, allowing me more quality time.
I'm not saying smartphones aren't convenient or useful but I don't want them to take over the world and be the only way one can live.
Thankfully, I'm not alone. Kindles were all the rage a few years ago but a lot of people have now gone back to proper traditional books now and I think that balance is healthy.
It used to be a huge pain - taking up to a dozen books on a plane (yes, really - when flying to Hong Kong there is a lot of reading to be done). And on the tube. Kindles were a blessing. Now, I generally prefer books. Some demand to be in book form (The Mirror & The Light, The Testaments, etc).
Me the same. I love the feel of books, unread and half read. Scattered across the bed.
Apparently Mao was the same. Had a huge bed, but when it wasn’t also occupied by teenage dancing girls it was stacked with books, which he would read until 3pm. Then finally rise. I am very similar tho I try not to starve Manchuria
I too love the feel of books, but sadly the way my eyes are going it's much easier to use the Kindle app with the text big enough for someone with normal vision to read it from about half a mile away.
I reckon I’ve got about another decade of pretending-I-don’t-need-glasses, until I finally have to accept I do
One of my last memories pre-lockdown was holding a restaurant menu in a dimly lit room about a yard from my face. The only way I could decipher it
That "request" to not let the UK into the CPTPP - do you think is has been screwed up in a ball, or torn to pieces or set on fire?
Or been translated as an endorsement of the UK entering the CPTPP.
Wait, they actually requested we not be allowed? Even if the request is, or, creative, what business is it of theirs to makes such a request? I cannot imagine they would like someone writing to them about prospective members.
What a load of guardianista bollocks. Exactly this happened regularly to white kids in rural England decades ago. I know, because it happened to me, and several friends
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
Brady was on TV the other day - first time I've seen him in quite a while. At what point does his postman get a work out?
I'm hoping the threat of a lot letters will bring Boris back to his senses on this one.
I read the other day that one of the ways Johnson likes to run Downing Street policy decisions is to let everyone run away with their various ideas and see through a kind of Darwinian process which kind of survives impact with public/media and so on. Maybe that is what is going on with this covid app idea?
Its not a bad way to run government. Better than a couple of people on a sofa making decisions and then sticking with them no matter how crap they are.
Alex*, 12, a dual heritage pupil at a school in Bristol, had been in year 7 for less than two weeks when he was wrongly accused by a teacher of having stolen cookies from the canteen at lunchtime.
At first he was told off by a teacher. But then the teacher asked a police officer based at the school to speak to him too.
When the officer spoke to Alex, they are alleged to have told him he wouldn’t be taken down to the police station on this occasion. Alex says he was also warned that he did not want to get a criminal record in the future and if he did, he would be unable to travel to the US.
“My heart was beating really fast. I felt scared, and I’ve never felt like that before,” Alex said, describing the moment he was spoken to by the officer.
The next day, Alex’s mother was contacted by the school regarding what had happened. When she found out her son had been spoken to by a police officer, she was “absolutely furious”.
“I was incredibly angry that my son has been interviewed by a police officer without a parent being present. To me, it was just completely over-the-top, completely heavy-handed and completely incorrectly handled.
“My son was petrified, and he was very upset as a result. I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way.
“This was a terrifying episode for my son, which led to him being too anxious to attend school for a number of months.”
After she approached the school for an explanation, the school launched an investigation into the incident. The mother also sent a complaint to Avon and Somerset police.
In written correspondence from the school’s deputy headteacher to the mother, seen by the Guardian, an investigation into the incident concluded that “there was no evidence that Alex had stolen cookies as he did pay for them immediately upon being asked to do so”, and the teacher “should not have jumped to the conclusion that he had stolen them”.
The letter said Alex was in the queue with another student who had stolen something earlier, and that “the two incidents [were] conflated as one, which was not appropriate”.
It added that the teacher who had spoken to Alex had “presumed” his guilt as a consequence.
Furthermore, the school said the police officer should not have been involved in the incident. Although the letter states that the manner of the meeting between Alex and the officer was “not confrontational”, the conclusion was that “it was inappropriate for this conversation to be had with Alex in the first place as there is no evidence that he had stolen”.
Still never let the police never complain about them being under resourced if they have the resources to investigate things like this.
What a load of guardianista bollocks. Exactly this happened regularly to white kids in rural England decades ago. I know, because it happened to me, and several friends
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
It works, it’s good, it’s sensible.
This new Guardian campaign against ‘racist British schools’ is as desperate as it is disgraceful. This paper is drowning. God knows what their ad income is
The Guardian relies on whole brigades of teachers etc to be its uncritical readers. It is remarkable that they are prepared to label them as racist. They are usually expert at othering evils of every sort. It's a bit like the Sun accusing white van man of being lazy scrounging lefties and disrespecting the flag of St George.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
No. That is naive. The people who object to this object to such cartoons being shown anywhere at all, object to any sort of criticism or insult to their faith. Their objection is not location - even though that is how they dress it up. It is to the fact of it happening at all. They are bullies. And bullies need to be faced down. Not appeased.
RE is exactly the place where this sort of stuff should be taught. This religion believes X. But others don't and and while you are entitled to believe what you want you are not entitled to impose your own religious requirements on others, no matter how upset you feel.
We are not a theocracy and we don't want mini-theocracies developing within our country. So that point needs to be made loud and clear in RE lessons.
We are a theocracy, our head of state is also the head of church of England, like Iran, another theocracy, we're one of the few countries with unelected clergy in our parliament.
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
Add also the point that it's only the state-approved sect which has unelected clerics in the Parliament. Just because Henry VIII etc. And that this de jure arrangement is ferociously defended by one, and only one, political party. Hard on you if you are a RC, Muslim, JK, FCS(C), or NR of course, etc.
To be fair on Henry VIII - the clerics were there in the Lords long before he was born.
The dilution of the Lords with increasing number of secular peers, and the reaction of the ecclesiastics to it, is an interesting side story that doesn't get looked at very often.
Yes, but it was the choice of clerics (so to speak) which he created, and on one side of which he plumped!
Interesting point too re dilution.
Yes - a surprising number of histories miss the point that pre-reformation, the Lords was dominated by ecclesiastics. When formalised by Henry, the result was a body that was majority secular Lords. And subsequent monarchs diluted them even further.
That "request" to not let the UK into the CPTPP - do you think is has been screwed up in a ball, or torn to pieces or set on fire?
Or been translated as an endorsement of the UK entering the CPTPP.
Wait, they actually requested we not be allowed? Even if the request is, or, creative, what business is it of theirs to makes such a request? I cannot imagine they would like someone writing to them about prospective members.
Allegedly. Seems to have been a backchannel request, not seen anything official and doubt anything would be done officially.
I read the other day that one of the ways Johnson likes to run Downing Street policy decisions is to let everyone run away with their various ideas and see through a kind of Darwinian process which kind of survives impact with public/media and so on. Maybe that is what is going on with this covid app idea?
That "request" to not let the UK into the CPTPP - do you think is has been screwed up in a ball, or torn to pieces or set on fire?
Or been translated as an endorsement of the UK entering the CPTPP.
Wait, they actually requested we not be allowed? Even if the request is, or, creative, what business is it of theirs to makes such a request? I cannot imagine they would like someone writing to them about prospective members.
Allegedly. Seems to have been a backchannel request, not seen anything official and doubt anything would be done officially.
I was told that it was a rather abrupt request from an EU representative in Australia during a meeting with a permanent official in the government there. The story spread though the Australia civil service on a "WTF?" basis.
The Brexit Party move to the Tories seems not too surprising, despite speculation that it might not be that clear. The big Green vote ought to be squeezable by Labour - a Green voter who fancies having a Tory MP dependent on BXP support would be a strange creature.
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
This is a government which does not fundamentally believe in the principles underlying liberal democracy, let alone that they are categorical imperatives.
I have been boring on - and no doubt boring everyone on here - about this for some time.
The last thing you do is bore anyone
Your posts are very welcome and you and your family have been greatly affected by covid and all the restrictions
It is rather unfair in some ways as my wife and I live in a lovely home with south facing garden within 100yards of the sea and views of the mountains behind. We do not want for anything and as pensioners (77 and 81) who have travelled round the world many times and undertaken lots of cruises, we are now content not to want to travel anymore
Apart from out eldest son and his wife in Vancouver, all the rest of our family including our four grandchildren live close by and we have had both our Pfizer vaccinations
It is therefore at times that we feel somewhat guilty that we are so fortunate and can understand the agonies, frustration, fears and anger of so many and all we can do is pray that this covid crisis eases for everyone as per the roadmap and nobody is restricted from their freedoms one minute more than is necessary
Good post Big G - just one thing - , when you say "we are now content not to want to travel anymore" can I assume you do not seek to restrict others that do?
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
It's not really a Hartlepool poll, though - it's an MRP based on demographic analysis of similar seats. Although it's plausible enough in general terms, I'm not sure it's very useful in predicting a by-election.
Alex*, 12, a dual heritage pupil at a school in Bristol, had been in year 7 for less than two weeks when he was wrongly accused by a teacher of having stolen cookies from the canteen at lunchtime.
At first he was told off by a teacher. But then the teacher asked a police officer based at the school to speak to him too.
When the officer spoke to Alex, they are alleged to have told him he wouldn’t be taken down to the police station on this occasion. Alex says he was also warned that he did not want to get a criminal record in the future and if he did, he would be unable to travel to the US.
“My heart was beating really fast. I felt scared, and I’ve never felt like that before,” Alex said, describing the moment he was spoken to by the officer.
The next day, Alex’s mother was contacted by the school regarding what had happened. When she found out her son had been spoken to by a police officer, she was “absolutely furious”.
“I was incredibly angry that my son has been interviewed by a police officer without a parent being present. To me, it was just completely over-the-top, completely heavy-handed and completely incorrectly handled.
“My son was petrified, and he was very upset as a result. I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way.
“This was a terrifying episode for my son, which led to him being too anxious to attend school for a number of months.”
After she approached the school for an explanation, the school launched an investigation into the incident. The mother also sent a complaint to Avon and Somerset police.
In written correspondence from the school’s deputy headteacher to the mother, seen by the Guardian, an investigation into the incident concluded that “there was no evidence that Alex had stolen cookies as he did pay for them immediately upon being asked to do so”, and the teacher “should not have jumped to the conclusion that he had stolen them”.
The letter said Alex was in the queue with another student who had stolen something earlier, and that “the two incidents [were] conflated as one, which was not appropriate”.
It added that the teacher who had spoken to Alex had “presumed” his guilt as a consequence.
Furthermore, the school said the police officer should not have been involved in the incident. Although the letter states that the manner of the meeting between Alex and the officer was “not confrontational”, the conclusion was that “it was inappropriate for this conversation to be had with Alex in the first place as there is no evidence that he had stolen”.
Still never let the police never complain about them being under resourced if they have the resources to investigate things like this.
What a load of guardianista bollocks. Exactly this happened regularly to white kids in rural England decades ago. I know, because it happened to me, and several friends
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
It works, it’s good, it’s sensible.
This new Guardian campaign against ‘racist British schools’ is as desperate as it is disgraceful. This paper is drowning. God knows what their ad income is
The Guardian relies on whole brigades of teachers etc to be its uncritical readers. It is remarkable that they are prepared to label them as racist. They are usually expert at othering evils of every sort. It's a bit like the Sun accusing white van man of being lazy scrounging lefties and disrespecting the flag of St George.
Yes, quite. Which is why it strikes me as desperate and needy. They must have run out of UK institutions to target as ‘racist’ - literally, they’ve done everyone else - but their income still plunges and online ads still dwindle? - so the editor thought ‘fuck it, schools’. And here we are
Comments
Said theocrat and her family are above the law.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Exclusive: palace and government refuse to say why exemption from 2017 law was deemed necessary
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/25/revealed-police-barred-from-searching-queens-estates-for-looted-artefacts
To be fair to him, he's not a fan of extending restrictions, but it does seem to be a far too common attitude.
This time I put No Religion down. After the move towards blasphemy laws and attacks on free speech around the world I feel like its appropriate to add my name to the No Religion total, despite still thinking it is none of the state's business to know about.
Some restrictions, just like Hancock and JVT, Whitty, and Vallance have also said.
"If you meet the Buddha, kill him." -Lin-chi I-hsuan, d. 866
Labour is going in the right direction. This is a decent start.
She reckons much of the country’s tourist infrastructure is gone for good
When this ends we will be like the bomb shelterers in Slaughterhouse 5, emerging after the firestorm
I have been boring on - and no doubt boring everyone on here - about this for some time.
They’ve proved it can can safely be repealed.
The problems we have with Boris is his reluctance to bow to the inevitable closures and lockdowns because, yes it buggers the economy, but also because it affronts his innate liberal sensibilities. I honestly can't see him locking us down a day longer than he thinks he can without being held responsible for a third wave.
However, this bit that really stood out for me was:
"I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way"
So, not hard to believe that they'd do this to a black pupil from one of the scummy areas? And that would be ok?
What's causing 'excitement' is the floating in the media of various suggestions that restrictions such as social distancing should go on past 21 June.
Your image sounds completely different.
Apparently Mao was the same. Had a huge bed, but when it wasn’t also occupied by teenage dancing girls it was stacked with books, which he would read until 3pm. Then finally rise. I am very similar tho I try not to starve Manchuria
Some people actually find the above *more* offensive than the cartoons. Because it suggests that their Way isn't the Only Way.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
And co-existing with other opinions is also important - particularly for religions with totalitarian claims (which is mainly Islam and Christianity).
It also legitimate, for example, to expect Christian children to consider Islam's (blasphemous to orthodex Xians) claims around eg the claim that Christ did not die on the Cross.
Potentially thorny stuff, which is why it is unacceptable not to address.
I would suggest tackling such questions with a small panel in a double period.
The Motoons were acceptable in an Eqyptian tabloid newspaper months before those Imams ran their trouble-making campaign around the ME, so they are acceptable to show in class in the UK.
I made a similar remark last year when someone said it was a shame we had Boris as PM for this as he doesn't want to do lockdowns so is doing them late. Frankly I'm glad we have someone who doesn't want to do it and would rather we enter a lockdown "late" than unnecessarily.
The concept of lockdown goes against every part of my philosophy. I have never agreed with it philosophically. If its going to be done because we have no alternative, then I'd far rather it be done because someone who doesn't want to do it thinks we have tried every other option and have no alternative than because its the first thing someone authoritarian chooses to do.
Even if that results in a "worse" outcome. Taking away fundamental liberties unnecessarily doesn't justify a better outcome - and that is why domestic lockdown should be ending now. We're past the last resort point, end this now.
My elderly father lives on his own and is shielding. The neighbouring property on one side is let to the council for respite care (adults with Downs syndrome I think).
There was a new (apparently) social worker in yesterday and he noticed that the overflow from my dad's cistern was dripping into the driveway for some time (an hour or two). He went round and knocked on the door. Now, it was only 9am and he's often asleep at that time, and he's also deaf so he never hears anyone. Naturally, there was no response.
At this point the 'precautionary principle' kicks in.
30 minutes later and there is a fireman bashing the door in. 2 paramedics and 2 police wade into his living room, where he's sat watching 'Tales of the Unexpected' and now distressed. He rings me to tell me "there's 4 police in my house". Shielding, remember.
I'm not quite sure where this chain of madness could have been broken. The social worker could have looked in the contact book and found my name, the paramedics could have looked on the vulnerable person list and found my name, the police could have checked the registration of the car in his driveway and found my name, or they could have crossed the street and asked another neighbour who could have found my name.
But none of this happened. Because they were all afraid of allowing something 'bad' to happen.
If they'd waited about 60 minutes I would have been round for a morning visit.
I'd criticise the government for not locking down early enough for Covid, but not opening up soon enough because of that criticism would be much worse.
I know you don't like WW2 analogies
Cyclefree points out that the Covid legislation was not needed, due to existing powers. That freaks me out, not the passing of time limited powers in response to a public health emergency, but the apparent fact that this could all have been done without passing those powers.
I AM TUMNUS
The idea that Boris is some sort of instinctive libertarian who is doing this stuff reluctantly is for the birds, frankly. From the start - well before Covid - this government has sought to take powers to itself and limit or avoid as much as possible any sort of scrutiny or checks on its powers or what it does with them.
Your posts are very welcome and you and your family have been greatly affected by covid and all the restrictions
It is rather unfair in some ways as my wife and I live in a lovely home with south facing garden within 100yards of the sea and views of the mountains behind. We do not want for anything and as pensioners (77 and 81) who have travelled round the world many times and undertaken lots of cruises, we are now content not to want to travel anymore
Apart from out eldest son and his wife in Vancouver, all the rest of our family including our four grandchildren live close by and we have had both our Pfizer vaccinations
It is therefore at times that we feel somewhat guilty that we are so fortunate and can understand the agonies, frustration, fears and anger of so many and all we can do is pray that this covid crisis eases for everyone as per the roadmap and nobody is restricted from their freedoms one minute more than is necessary
We really need some members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the House of Lords.
If you want to learn about your own religion as the One True Path that should be done in your own Church/Temple/Mosque etc not as part of an education.
The dilution of the Lords with increasing number of secular peers, and the reaction of the ecclesiastics to it, is an interesting side story that doesn't get looked at very often.
The French are really really pissed at us aren't they
Before the monarch was head of our established church after the Reformation, the Pope was head of our established church, the Pope is still Head of State of the Vatican City so we have always had a head of state as head of our Church. The Bishops make up less than 5% of the Lords and are highly educated, 85% of Bishops went to Oxbridge compared to 38% of the Lords as a whole so I have no problem if we continue to have an appointed upper house in keeping some representatives of the established church there. The Chief Rabbi is also in the Lords too and I would have no problem with a few Imams and Hindu Priests etc being members as well.
Given Boris refuses to hand back the Elgin marbles to Greece and given the British Museum wants to preserve most of its assets no surprise the royal household does too
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/811045/Elitist_Britain_2019.pdfhttps://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/04/church-of-england-bishops-are-more-elitist-than-david-camerons-cabinet
I hope you never have to live in a real theocracy.
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
It works, it’s good, it’s sensible.
This new Guardian campaign against ‘racist British schools’ is as desperate as it is disgraceful. This paper is drowning. God knows what their ad income is
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1375395265956483073
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1375388553266524161?s=20
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
"Believe in vague niceness, cups of tea and steam trains! And not mentioned God if you can help it! Otherwise we will hang you from a crane!"
But yeah. Then I crashed off the rails SPECTACULARLY. But by then my education was done
https://twitter.com/eddwilson/status/1375319969697828870
The simple fact is Mike's argument would have a lot more effect if, just once, it was recognised what the Democrats are doing to weight the system in their favour or the actions they took before November were acknowledged. Courts have ruled in several states that Democrat Secretaries of State overstepped their boundaries in changing rules without the authorisation of legislatures that had the proper authority or, as in PA, Democrat-controlled courts giving themselves powers which they didn't have. And that is without getting onto the monstrosity that is HR1, which is a blatant attempt at rigging.
We saw this the other day on Nancy Pelosi's blatant attempts to overturn the IA-2 result and hand the seat to the Democrat loser. People like @rpjs who would wet their pants at the signs of Trump doing anything, come out "well, under the Constitution, the House has the authority to change the result". Yeah? Well, under the Constitution, Republican controlled state legislatures could have sent their own delegates. What would have been the screams on here if the Republican did that and cited the Constitution.
So normally I would look at what Georgia has done and said "this is not the route". But you know what, f**k it, I'm sick of the hypocrisy and preaching so I say bring it on and I hope every Republican state does this sort of thing. It's the only way the Democrats will ever learn.
BoJo should invite Marine Le Pen to Downing street for consultations and then offer to release 30 million doses of vaccine because he has spoken with someone reasonable.
Watching Macron's reaction would provide amusement until the end of Lockdown.
Interesting point too re dilution.
She was particularly struck by the EU simultaneously banning yet stealing AZ vaccines.
I also think once urgency has reduced, as is happening, theres no reason to risk letting them try.
https://whatworks.college.police.uk/toolkit/Pages/Intervention.aspx?InterventionID=2
I read the other day that one of the ways Johnson likes to run Downing Street policy decisions is to let everyone run away with their various ideas and see through a kind of Darwinian process which kind of survives impact with public/media and so on. Maybe that is what is going on with this covid app idea?
One of my last memories pre-lockdown was holding a restaurant menu in a dimly lit room about a yard from my face. The only way I could decipher it
What it is NOT is racist. Schools have been doing this for many decades across the UK (probably across the world)
EDIT: and what you describe there is very different to what I experienced, which was much closer to the Guardian story
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/in-hartlepool-green-and-brexit-party-voters-threaten-starmers-chances-kd8mfr0bh
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1375399137932423169