An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If I were Boris, I'd have he head of MI5 in for chat without tea and biscuits. He should be keeping his gob shut, but now he's entered the fray, I think GCHQ should actually investigate this.
Ultimately it was the main part of PMQs today. If foreign actors are doing this, they are influencing our politics. That needs to be called out as much as Brexit or Trump.
Foreign actors are doing it now. Last year's Russia Report from the Intelligence and Security Committee said so. Primary responsibiltiy for countering it lies with the DCMS, which is rather like putting countering the Luftwaffe in the hands of the Salvation Army.
That mad Scottish Nat - Calista Hebburn - was a fascinating example of how just one person with fake but incendiary opinions can inflame thousands.
Social media has been weaponised by the Russians and Chinese, and turned against us. And it is getting worse
I read today that the Chinese now have their own version of GPT-3- the quasi intelligent NLP robot. Except this is 10 times bigger than GPT-3, and has been fed on English AND Chinese. It is called Wu Dao.
Google and Microsoft are trying to make GPT-3 stay Woke and they are restricting access partly for that reason. The Chinese will have no such scruples. Wu Dao could invent a hundred Calista Hebburns every day, roiling our politics. Perhaps Wu Dao WAS responsible for Calista Hebburn. Her syntax had the odd, umami flavour of AI thought
"GPT-3 Scared You? Meet Wu Dao 2.0: A Monster of 1.75 Trillion Parameters"
Perhaps we all need to start using social media a lot less. I know it sounds unlikely at the moment, but maybe people will eventually get fed up with spending most of their day having pointless, angry arguments with people they'll never meet, and do something useful instead.
My 17 year old certainly barely uses it. And certainly wouldn't dream of arguing with a "random" on it. It's a tool. One we didn't grow up with, so isn't second nature.
If he's like my 19 year olds the only things they use are discord, a tiny bit of instagram and some fanfiction site.,
Discord is a good one. I discovered it a couple of years ago and used it for just one game, but now use it for a fair bit.
"Mainstream" social media does seem to have become a middle aged or older persons preserve now not a young persons one.
Bizarrely the only thing I've used Facebook for, for years now, is logging in to apps and games etc - I've almost never posted anything to my Facebook wall in years.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
If I were Boris, I'd have he head of MI5 in for chat without tea and biscuits. He should be keeping his gob shut, but now he's entered the fray, I think GCHQ should actually investigate this.
Ultimately it was the main part of PMQs today. If foreign actors are doing this, they are influencing our politics. That needs to be called out as much as Brexit or Trump.
Foreign actors are doing it now. Last year's Russia Report from the Intelligence and Security Committee said so. Primary responsibiltiy for countering it lies with the DCMS, which is rather like putting countering the Luftwaffe in the hands of the Salvation Army.
That mad Scottish Nat - Calista Hebburn - was a fascinating example of how just one person with fake but incendiary opinions can inflame thousands.
Social media has been weaponised by the Russians and Chinese, and turned against us. And it is getting worse
I read today that the Chinese now have their own version of GPT-3- the quasi intelligent NLP robot. Except this is 10 times bigger than GPT-3, and has been fed on English AND Chinese. It is called Wu Dao.
Google and Microsoft are trying to make GPT-3 stay Woke and they are restricting access partly for that reason. The Chinese will have no such scruples. Wu Dao could invent a hundred Calista Hebburns every day, roiling our politics. Perhaps Wu Dao WAS responsible for Calista Hebburn. Her syntax had the odd, umami flavour of AI thought
"GPT-3 Scared You? Meet Wu Dao 2.0: A Monster of 1.75 Trillion Parameters"
Perhaps we all need to start using social media a lot less. I know it sounds unlikely at the moment, but maybe people will eventually get fed up with spending most of their day having pointless, angry arguments with people they'll never meet, and do something useful instead.
My 17 year old certainly barely uses it. And certainly wouldn't dream of arguing with a "random" on it. It's a tool. One we didn't grow up with, so isn't second nature.
If he's like my 19 year olds the only things they use are discord, a tiny bit of instagram and some fanfiction site.,
Discord is a good one. I discovered it a couple of years ago and used it for just one game, but now use it for a fair bit.
"Mainstream" social media does seem to have become a middle aged or older persons preserve now not a young persons one.
Bizarrely the only thing I've used Facebook for, for years now, is logging in to apps and games etc - I've almost never posted anything to my Facebook wall in years.
There are 2 photos of me that Facebook has - one is a photo Id when I did a talk in Facebook London back in I think 2012.
The other is an Xmas party photo from I think 2018 which instantly attached my name to my face on a group photo.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
That's one example though. Last week there was a male couple and a female couple openly snogging in the very same train carriage passing through Gateshead late at night. Would NOT have happened in the permissive eighties and nineties.
If someone tweets something derogatory using for example the words "boomer" or "gammon" they don't appear to face disciplinary action and people that fall under the two definitions are expected to work along side them.
On the other hand we have this guy using the N word in a tweet and people saying how can people of colour be expected to work along side them.
Now I personally don't support either tweet but does seem a little double standards. One set of people just expected to put up with it one set "how can we work with him"
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
I dont think Johnson did any damage to his polling ratings at PMQs
SKS will not breakthrough on that kind of showing.
Lab should have been calling Delta the Johnson wave with every question for weeks till it sticks
PMQs very, very rarely shift polling. Not enough people are watching, and those that are generally know it's theatre.
What they do is gradually shift mood. SKS has been on the defensive in recent months, and at times teetering. These sort of things strengthen him, and put a spring in Labour steps (particularly going towards recess) while knocking Tory confidence and harming the narrative. Where his MPs are cringing, as they will have been at times with Johnson today, that does undermine him and makes his job harder.
The issue is its too little, too late for PMQs to affect anything for a while now.
Stage 4 happens on Monday, the final PMQs of this session on Wednesday, then its the summer break and its silly season and before you know it politically we're at Conference season and heading into the autumn.
Realistically what happens at PMQs today or next week isn't going to be remembered in six months time. What happens this summer both healthwise and economy wise is going to be remembered.
If the PM has made the right call proceeding to Stage 4 then a challenging PMQs today is not going to be relevant. If the PM has made the wrong call proceeding to Stage 4 then a good PMQs today is not going to be relevant.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
She might be doing it to make other women jealous or to let them appreciate it?
If I were Boris, I'd have he head of MI5 in for chat without tea and biscuits. He should be keeping his gob shut, but now he's entered the fray, I think GCHQ should actually investigate this.
Ultimately it was the main part of PMQs today. If foreign actors are doing this, they are influencing our politics. That needs to be called out as much as Brexit or Trump.
Foreign actors are doing it now. Last year's Russia Report from the Intelligence and Security Committee said so. Primary responsibiltiy for countering it lies with the DCMS, which is rather like putting countering the Luftwaffe in the hands of the Salvation Army.
That mad Scottish Nat - Calista Hebburn - was a fascinating example of how just one person with fake but incendiary opinions can inflame thousands.
Social media has been weaponised by the Russians and Chinese, and turned against us. And it is getting worse
I read today that the Chinese now have their own version of GPT-3- the quasi intelligent NLP robot. Except this is 10 times bigger than GPT-3, and has been fed on English AND Chinese. It is called Wu Dao.
Google and Microsoft are trying to make GPT-3 stay Woke and they are restricting access partly for that reason. The Chinese will have no such scruples. Wu Dao could invent a hundred Calista Hebburns every day, roiling our politics. Perhaps Wu Dao WAS responsible for Calista Hebburn. Her syntax had the odd, umami flavour of AI thought
"GPT-3 Scared You? Meet Wu Dao 2.0: A Monster of 1.75 Trillion Parameters"
Perhaps we all need to start using social media a lot less. I know it sounds unlikely at the moment, but maybe people will eventually get fed up with spending most of their day having pointless, angry arguments with people they'll never meet, and do something useful instead.
My 17 year old certainly barely uses it. And certainly wouldn't dream of arguing with a "random" on it. It's a tool. One we didn't grow up with, so isn't second nature.
If he's like my 19 year olds the only things they use are discord, a tiny bit of instagram and some fanfiction site.,
Discord is a good one. I discovered it a couple of years ago and used it for just one game, but now use it for a fair bit.
"Mainstream" social media does seem to have become a middle aged or older persons preserve now not a young persons one.
Bizarrely the only thing I've used Facebook for, for years now, is logging in to apps and games etc - I've almost never posted anything to my Facebook wall in years.
You can tell that. They haven't had a wall for years.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
She might be doing it to make other women jealous or to let them appreciate it?
But the beautiful female legs make other women jealous BECAUSE these limbs are desired by men. It is the lusty male gaze that fuels it all, fundamentally
"I dress to please myself" is feminist piffle of the first water, ultimately a young heterosexual woman always dresses to please men
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
She might be doing it to make other women jealous or to let them appreciate it?
But the beautiful female legs make other women jealous BECAUSE these limbs are desired by men. It is the lusty male gaze that fuels it all, fundamentally
"I dress to please myself" is feminist piffle of the first water, ultimately a young heterosexual woman always dresses to please men
But the beautiful female legs make other women jealous BECAUSE these limbs are desired by women. There gave you another possibility
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
That's one example though. Last week there was a male couple and a female couple openly snogging in the very same train carriage passing through Gateshead late at night. Would NOT have happened in the permissive eighties and nineties.
Indeed, and well said. That IS progress. But I wonder how long it will last in the face of some Muslim attitudes. Hopefully those attitudes will evolve
I see we have had the usual Wednesday spike in cases to dash hopes of them peaking. I look forward to the usual suspects claiming next Monday that cases have levelled off in the mid 40k cases...
(1) The schools break up next Friday. See Scotland case numbers for what happens when schools break up. (2) The rate of increase in new cases has absolutely collapsed already. Even without schools breaking up, we would likely see cases top out pretty soon.
I forecast a peak in infections of 50k. I don't think that looks very far from the truth.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
She might be doing it to make other women jealous or to let them appreciate it?
But the beautiful female legs make other women jealous BECAUSE these limbs are desired by men. It is the lusty male gaze that fuels it all, fundamentally
"I dress to please myself" is feminist piffle of the first water, ultimately a young heterosexual woman always dresses to please men
Agreed. It is quite jawdropping that some people deny this. It's as though they've never wondered why men and women mostly like to wear different kinds of clothes, and why they choose clothes that differ in the ways they actually do differ.
What I'd like to know is has the hijab been de facto unbanned in France during the pandemic? "Face-covering" ("la dissimulation du visage") was prohibited and then, turn around for five minutes and it was made compulsory.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
The obsession with race is a disease.
You obviously spend too much time quoffing Massolino Vigna Rionda Riserva rather than mixing with toxic masculine football fans. Racism is a real issue, not something outsiders are obsessing over.
And it's not just football either.
He probably has a point about the Guardian though. It’s gone downhill since Rusbridger left.
Yes it's a terrible paper. All over the place.
I'm a susbcriber - I think it's fine. If you don't like it don't read it.
By all accounts it is not a happy office, at the moment
"Guardian Media Group chief Annette Thomas quits after clash with editor Publishing boss disagreed with Katharine Viner over direction and governance of group"
The New York Times is a huge threat to them, in the medium term
I think the issue for all papers is the decline of print, the switch to online content, and how to make that commercially sustainable.
Gosh, what a startling insight!
With all due respect, I think the papers are aware of this, and the argument is now someway beyond your point. eg the NYT is now making fat profits with a highly effective paywall. As such it is able to expand, on all fronts, and it is aggressively going after UK readers - you can subscribe to the NYT for 50p a week from Blighty
That's a bargain, because the NYT is an excellent paper in many ways, especially if you like obsessive woke-ish race-crazed English language journalism, along with splendid cooking and travel sections. That is to say: it is the Guardian, but richer and more powerful, and that is a potential death warrant for the Guardian
The New York Times (once one ignores any stories about the UK, or at least decontaminate their hysterical anti-Brexit views) is a genuinely excellent newspaper. Really good full length pieces, proper journalism, and you don't need to buy a single cook book again.
I don't regret a penny of my subscription to them.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
She might be doing it to make other women jealous or to let them appreciate it?
But the beautiful female legs make other women jealous BECAUSE these limbs are desired by men. It is the lusty male gaze that fuels it all, fundamentally
"I dress to please myself" is feminist piffle of the first water, ultimately a young heterosexual woman always dresses to please men
I wasn't aware there were any young heterosexual women anymore.
These days, they're all panamarous, cis-, questioning or somesuch. Can't we just have lesbians again?
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
She might be doing it to make other women jealous or to let them appreciate it?
But the beautiful female legs make other women jealous BECAUSE these limbs are desired by men. It is the lusty male gaze that fuels it all, fundamentally
"I dress to please myself" is feminist piffle of the first water, ultimately a young heterosexual woman always dresses to please men
I wasn't aware there were any young heterosexual women anymore.
These days, they're all panamarous, cis-, questioning or somesuch. Can't we just have lesbians again?
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
The obsession with race is a disease.
You obviously spend too much time quoffing Massolino Vigna Rionda Riserva rather than mixing with toxic masculine football fans. Racism is a real issue, not something outsiders are obsessing over.
And it's not just football either.
He probably has a point about the Guardian though. It’s gone downhill since Rusbridger left.
Yes it's a terrible paper. All over the place.
I'm a susbcriber - I think it's fine. If you don't like it don't read it.
By all accounts it is not a happy office, at the moment
"Guardian Media Group chief Annette Thomas quits after clash with editor Publishing boss disagreed with Katharine Viner over direction and governance of group"
The New York Times is a huge threat to them, in the medium term
I think the issue for all papers is the decline of print, the switch to online content, and how to make that commercially sustainable.
Gosh, what a startling insight!
With all due respect, I think the papers are aware of this, and the argument is now someway beyond your point. eg the NYT is now making fat profits with a highly effective paywall. As such it is able to expand, on all fronts, and it is aggressively going after UK readers - you can subscribe to the NYT for 50p a week from Blighty
That's a bargain, because the NYT is an excellent paper in many ways, especially if you like obsessive woke-ish race-crazed English language journalism, along with splendid cooking and travel sections. That is to say: it is the Guardian, but richer and more powerful, and that is a potential death warrant for the Guardian
The New York Times (once one ignores any stories about the UK, or at least decontaminate their hysterical anti-Brexit views) is a genuinely excellent newspaper. Really good full length pieces, proper journalism, and you don't need to buy a single cook book again.
I don't regret a penny of my subscription to them.
Agreed. Some excellent overseas reportage, as well. Proper foreign correspondent stuff
The Woke shit is mad, tho, and their coverage of Britain is surreally bad. Indeed, so bad it needs explaining. There must be smart people on the paper who know it is crazed persiflage, why do they allow it?! Is it really just a hatred of Brexit? An association of Brexit with Trump?!
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
That's one example though. Last week there was a male couple and a female couple openly snogging in the very same train carriage passing through Gateshead late at night. Would NOT have happened in the permissive eighties and nineties.
That sounds like a foursome! They were very common in the eighties and nineties.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
She might be doing it to make other women jealous or to let them appreciate it?
But the beautiful female legs make other women jealous BECAUSE these limbs are desired by men. It is the lusty male gaze that fuels it all, fundamentally
"I dress to please myself" is feminist piffle of the first water, ultimately a young heterosexual woman always dresses to please men
I wasn't aware there were any young heterosexual women anymore.
These days, they're all panamarous, cis-, questioning or somesuch. Can't we just have lesbians again?
My favourite at the moment is "I am sapiosexual"
Translation: I fancy smart guys who have made loads of money
I've not met many self-declared "sapiosexuals" who fancy penniless old philosophers in attics
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
The obsession with race is a disease.
You obviously spend too much time quoffing Massolino Vigna Rionda Riserva rather than mixing with toxic masculine football fans. Racism is a real issue, not something outsiders are obsessing over.
And it's not just football either.
He probably has a point about the Guardian though. It’s gone downhill since Rusbridger left.
Yes it's a terrible paper. All over the place.
I'm a susbcriber - I think it's fine. If you don't like it don't read it.
By all accounts it is not a happy office, at the moment
"Guardian Media Group chief Annette Thomas quits after clash with editor Publishing boss disagreed with Katharine Viner over direction and governance of group"
The New York Times is a huge threat to them, in the medium term
I think the issue for all papers is the decline of print, the switch to online content, and how to make that commercially sustainable.
Gosh, what a startling insight!
With all due respect, I think the papers are aware of this, and the argument is now someway beyond your point. eg the NYT is now making fat profits with a highly effective paywall. As such it is able to expand, on all fronts, and it is aggressively going after UK readers - you can subscribe to the NYT for 50p a week from Blighty
That's a bargain, because the NYT is an excellent paper in many ways, especially if you like obsessive woke-ish race-crazed English language journalism, along with splendid cooking and travel sections. That is to say: it is the Guardian, but richer and more powerful, and that is a potential death warrant for the Guardian
The New York Times (once one ignores any stories about the UK, or at least decontaminate their hysterical anti-Brexit views) is a genuinely excellent newspaper. Really good full length pieces, proper journalism, and you don't need to buy a single cook book again.
I don't regret a penny of my subscription to them.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
She might be doing it to make other women jealous or to let them appreciate it?
But the beautiful female legs make other women jealous BECAUSE these limbs are desired by men. It is the lusty male gaze that fuels it all, fundamentally
"I dress to please myself" is feminist piffle of the first water, ultimately a young heterosexual woman always dresses to please men
I wasn't aware there were any young heterosexual women anymore.
These days, they're all panamarous, cis-, questioning or somesuch. Can't we just have lesbians again?
My favourite at the moment is "I am sapiosexual"
Translation: I fancy smart guys who have made loads of money
I've not met many self-declared "sapiosexuals" who fancy penniless old philosophers in attics
I'm OK with it, on the whole
Met both males and females that declare that and while your cycnicism probably has some justification you can have a lot of fun with self declared sapiosexuals as you can point out it verges on eugenecism
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Johnson has obviously decided he can afford to lose a few percentage points of support to the Reform Party as far as his green tax policies are concerned.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
That's regressive and wouldn't last 5 minutes when we start asking why should those who don't have a car pay it.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
Perhaps the drop is they got uncomfortable with you scoping the breasts, is there a correlation one has to ask between your visits to these places and the drop in toplessness?
Genuine lol
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
Won't be suing you a sight I enjoyed myself so would be being hypocritical
If a lovely young woman is going to whip out her hooters, I am going to have me an ogle. It would be rude not to. She obviously wants to show them off
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
Another unintended consequence of smartphones and social media.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
That's regressive and wouldn't last 5 minutes when we start asking why should those who don't have a car pay it.
Its not really any more regressive than fuel duty itself is and right now its 'green' too as it encourages insulation and efficiencies etc so you go from one green tax (without a future) to another green tax (with a bright future).
Why should those with a car pay more? The money raised from cars is going to fund the general Treasury, its just another tax, its not going to fund roads.
Between fuel duty, VED and VAT on top of fuel duty the government raises over £40bn per annum from drivers as it stands and only about a quarter of that ends up back on road maintenance or upgrades etc - drivers are just a cash crop for the Treasury and the Treasury needs to look elsewhere now.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
That's regressive and wouldn't last 5 minutes when we start asking why should those who don't have a car pay it.
Its not really any more regressive than fuel duty itself is and right now its 'green' too as it encourages insulation and efficiencies etc so you go from one green tax (without a future) to another green tax (with a bright future).
Why should those with a car pay more? The money raised from cars is going to fund the general Treasury, its just another tax, its not going to fund roads.
Between fuel duty, VED and VAT on top of fuel duty the government raises over £40bn per annum from drivers as it stands and only about a quarter of that ends up back on road maintenance or upgrades etc - drivers are just a cash crop for the Treasury and the Treasury needs to look elsewhere now.
It is regressive as it charges those who don't pay fuel duty now because they have structured their lives not to need a car. Whack it all on VED. You want a car pay for it don't try to socialise your pollution.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
The obsession with race is a disease.
You obviously spend too much time quoffing Massolino Vigna Rionda Riserva rather than mixing with toxic masculine football fans. Racism is a real issue, not something outsiders are obsessing over.
And it's not just football either.
He probably has a point about the Guardian though. It’s gone downhill since Rusbridger left.
Yes it's a terrible paper. All over the place.
I'm a susbcriber - I think it's fine. If you don't like it don't read it.
By all accounts it is not a happy office, at the moment
"Guardian Media Group chief Annette Thomas quits after clash with editor Publishing boss disagreed with Katharine Viner over direction and governance of group"
The New York Times is a huge threat to them, in the medium term
I think the issue for all papers is the decline of print, the switch to online content, and how to make that commercially sustainable.
Gosh, what a startling insight!
With all due respect, I think the papers are aware of this, and the argument is now someway beyond your point. eg the NYT is now making fat profits with a highly effective paywall. As such it is able to expand, on all fronts, and it is aggressively going after UK readers - you can subscribe to the NYT for 50p a week from Blighty
That's a bargain, because the NYT is an excellent paper in many ways, especially if you like obsessive woke-ish race-crazed English language journalism, along with splendid cooking and travel sections. That is to say: it is the Guardian, but richer and more powerful, and that is a potential death warrant for the Guardian
The New York Times (once one ignores any stories about the UK, or at least decontaminate their hysterical anti-Brexit views) is a genuinely excellent newspaper. Really good full length pieces, proper journalism, and you don't need to buy a single cook book again.
I don't regret a penny of my subscription to them.
Agreed. Some excellent overseas reportage, as well. Proper foreign correspondent stuff
The Woke shit is mad, tho, and their coverage of Britain is surreally bad. Indeed, so bad it needs explaining. There must be smart people on the paper who know it is crazed persiflage, why do they allow it?! Is it really just a hatred of Brexit? An association of Brexit with Trump?!
Otherwise, yes, and the Guardian is in trouble
Having spent time in the US, I've come to realise that there is a lot ingrained racism (particularly in the South) than there is in the UK.
For a start, it's much more segregated geographically. In my daughter's year at the local elementary school, I think there was a single African American - and even she was only half African American as her mother was a Swedish model.
Even the most segregated areas of London, like Tower Hamlets and Whitechapel aren't particularly segregated. I used to live 100 yards from Mosque East of Aldgate, and while white English people were in the minority, it wasn't like we were 1-2% of the population.
If you go to some parts of LA, they will be overwhelmingly black, and others will be overwhelmingly Latino, etc.
The schools in these areas have often ended up being starved of money too. Los Angeles is not a single city - it is made up of 88 separate cities with places like Beverly Hills and Bel Air getting enormous amounts of money from property taxes (median family income $250k), while cities like Watts have median incomes of $25k. Their schools can barely afford books, while Beverly Hills High debates a new lacrosse court.
And this is public education I'm talking about.
Most policing is provided by the County, and is overwhelmingly white. This means highly armed white people cruise through poverty stricken areas like an occupying force. Your chance of being traffic stopped as a white person is close to zero, but if you're African American, then the numbers look very different.
Bear in mind, as well, that I'm talking about is in Los Angeles. This is one of the places that has fewest problems, because at least jobs are plentiful - if you don't mind spending 45 minutes in a car getting to and from work each day.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
That's regressive and wouldn't last 5 minutes when we start asking why should those who don't have a car pay it.
Its not really any more regressive than fuel duty itself is and right now its 'green' too as it encourages insulation and efficiencies etc so you go from one green tax (without a future) to another green tax (with a bright future).
Why should those with a car pay more? The money raised from cars is going to fund the general Treasury, its just another tax, its not going to fund roads.
Between fuel duty, VED and VAT on top of fuel duty the government raises over £40bn per annum from drivers as it stands and only about a quarter of that ends up back on road maintenance or upgrades etc - drivers are just a cash crop for the Treasury and the Treasury needs to look elsewhere now.
It is regressive as it charges those who don't pay fuel duty now because they have structured their lives not to need a car. Whack it all on VED. You want a car pay for it don't try to socialise your pollution.
That's not what regressive means.
What pollution? We're talking about post-fuel electric vehicles which in case you missed it are exempt from fuel duty and exempt from VED.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
That's one example though. Last week there was a male couple and a female couple openly snogging in the very same train carriage passing through Gateshead late at night. Would NOT have happened in the permissive eighties and nineties.
That sounds like a foursome! They were very common in the eighties and nineties.
Indeed they were! However, these 2 couples were at opposite ends of the carriage and were oblivious to each other. Or anything else for that matter.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
That's one example though. Last week there was a male couple and a female couple openly snogging in the very same train carriage passing through Gateshead late at night. Would NOT have happened in the permissive eighties and nineties.
That sounds like a foursome! They were very common in the eighties and nineties.
Indeed they were! However, these 2 couples were at opposite ends of the carriage and were oblivious to each other. Or anything else for that matter.
threesomes and foursomes and moresomes are still common
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
That's regressive and wouldn't last 5 minutes when we start asking why should those who don't have a car pay it.
Its not really any more regressive than fuel duty itself is and right now its 'green' too as it encourages insulation and efficiencies etc so you go from one green tax (without a future) to another green tax (with a bright future).
Why should those with a car pay more? The money raised from cars is going to fund the general Treasury, its just another tax, its not going to fund roads.
Between fuel duty, VED and VAT on top of fuel duty the government raises over £40bn per annum from drivers as it stands and only about a quarter of that ends up back on road maintenance or upgrades etc - drivers are just a cash crop for the Treasury and the Treasury needs to look elsewhere now.
It is regressive as it charges those who don't pay fuel duty now because they have structured their lives not to need a car. Whack it all on VED. You want a car pay for it don't try to socialise your pollution.
That's not what regressive means.
What pollution? We're talking about post-fuel electric vehicles which in case you missed it are exempt from fuel duty and exempt from VED.
Post fuel vehicles still cause pollution, they still wear roads, they still put co2 into the atmosphere. They should not be exempt from either fuel duty or ved. Car drivers should carry the cost of driving cars full stop. Arguing that everyone else should carry your cost makes you a damn socialist
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
194 Covid deaths in Tunisia today (Wed 14th), equalling the record high number on Sat 10th. For a while it looked as though the wave had passed its peak.
Tim Spector (ZOE app) says he thinks total cases have plateau, and thinks cases will go down, but very long tail due to euros and further easing of restrictions.
Interestingly he says unvaccinated groups cases dropping (less of these people plus potentially some herd immunity), but big rise in cases in people with 1 dose. Cases in fully vaccinated are up slightly, but nothing like one dose.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
That's regressive and wouldn't last 5 minutes when we start asking why should those who don't have a car pay it.
Its not really any more regressive than fuel duty itself is and right now its 'green' too as it encourages insulation and efficiencies etc so you go from one green tax (without a future) to another green tax (with a bright future).
Why should those with a car pay more? The money raised from cars is going to fund the general Treasury, its just another tax, its not going to fund roads.
Between fuel duty, VED and VAT on top of fuel duty the government raises over £40bn per annum from drivers as it stands and only about a quarter of that ends up back on road maintenance or upgrades etc - drivers are just a cash crop for the Treasury and the Treasury needs to look elsewhere now.
It is regressive as it charges those who don't pay fuel duty now because they have structured their lives not to need a car. Whack it all on VED. You want a car pay for it don't try to socialise your pollution.
That's not what regressive means.
What pollution? We're talking about post-fuel electric vehicles which in case you missed it are exempt from fuel duty and exempt from VED.
Post fuel vehicles still cause pollution, they still wear roads, they still put co2 into the atmosphere. They should not be exempt from either fuel duty or ved. Car drivers should carry the cost of driving cars full stop. Arguing that everyone else should carry your cost makes you a damn socialist
Happy for drivers to pay for the cost of the roads, but the Treasury isn't worried about losing the money for the cost of the roads, its worried about the tens of billions of other revenues they raise from socialist taxes you support in order to spend on other unrelated issues.
What CO2 are electric-only vehicles putting into the atmosphere precisely and how does that shape with the rest of the nations activities?
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Tim Spector (ZOE app) says he thinks total cases have plateau, and thinks cases will go down, but very long tail due to euros and further easing of restrictions.
Interestingly he says unvaccinated groups cases dropping as, but big rise in cases in people with 1 dose. Cases in fully vaccinated are up slightly, but nothing like one dose.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
I'm sure you're right. This guy will face severe problems for a long time
My point is that it is way over the top. The public shame is, by itself, enough of a deterrent, does he have to lose his livelihood?
The obsession with race is a disease. Look at the Guardian's online front page. At least 14 headlines are directly about race and racism (and other stories are variously connected). It is monomaniacal, and it is unhealthy. And I have no doubt that a lot of it is being cleverly stoked by Russian and Chinese bots and trolls
Look at it from the perspective of his colleagues many of whom there are surely black and Asian. Is it fair on them to be working with someone who thinks they're scum? Would you risk them walking out to other companies to hold on to a known racist?
Actions have consequence. This is a case of a racist knobhead chatting shit and getting banged.
Far too judgemental. We all say mad things from time to time, especially in moments of great emotion (like England losing a final on penalties)
If this dude has a history of racism, then fair enough, but just one word said in anger or sadness or whatever? No. Why can't he be allowed to apologise profusely, and continue with his life? A bit of Christian forgiveness wouldn't go amiss
Also, this case shows just how easy it is to ruin lives by hacking social media, should you be so inclined. Just get into a Twitter account and make them say the N word. Bingo, they are cancelled, career finished. Bonkers
I've been drunk and posted stuff on here in the past I've subsequently regretted.
Thankfully, we have forgiving editors and mods on here who largely know the posters and can assess if, fundamentally, they're a good or bad egg or not.
Sometimes it's complicated.
We all have. But not racist stuff. No one. No one who is still posting, that is.
To post racist shit when you are drunk means there is racist shit going around your head somewhere.
No one who hasn't been banned from PB imo fits that bill.
I don't believe there is a human being on earth who has never had a "racist" thought. There is science to back this up. We all perceive skin colour, and otherness, and we have a reflexive wariness - it is Darwinian. The baby that is cautious of outsiders is likelier to survive, and grow into an adult, and have children of her own. Thus the trait flourishes.
On this I am in rare agreement with the Critical Race Theorists. I just passionately disagree with their way of remedying this very human flaw
Yes, that is the ultimate taboo in today's society and is probably true.
The trick is to be aware of that reflexive trait in the brain stem, so your neo-cortex can overrule it.
It is obviously and provably true. But people are now SO scared of being seen as *racist* they won't even address it. Madness
Isn't that what Unconscious Bias training is all about?
@Casino_Royale I think the today's ultimate taboo is paedophilia (rightly so imo*).
It's interesting to reflect on how the taboos have risen and fallen in prominence over the decades and centuries. 150 years ago paedophilia and racism would have been seen as a bit distasteful at worst - whereas homosexuality, female promiscuity, blasphemy would all have been seen as serious transgressions.
(*But it's hardly surprising I feel that as I am, like we all are, steeped in current attitudes.)
Every society believes it has reached, or is close to reaching, the final revelation on all matters moral - a position which will not be changed. It is always bollocks. In 20 years time what we see as obviously right, will be transformed, and not in predictable ways
Relatedly, the idea that we are endlessly proceeding to a more relaxed, progressive, permissive attitude, is nonsense, and is indeed provably wrong from our own experience as adults
Probably the most permissive decades were the 80s or the 90s, since then we have become more prudish and censorious, in many matters - from sex to race to religion. A new puritanism has taken over
One tiny example, in Majorca last week I was surprised to see a few women sunbathing topless. Why? Because it has become so rare, whereas it was ubiquitous, and close to being universal, 30 years ago. Now women cover up more, and they really do. It is not an illusion:
"Fewer than one in five French women under 50 said they sported a 'monokini' compared to 28 per cent a decade ago and 43 per cent in 1984, data shows"
That's one example though. Last week there was a male couple and a female couple openly snogging in the very same train carriage passing through Gateshead late at night. Would NOT have happened in the permissive eighties and nineties.
That sounds like a foursome! They were very common in the eighties and nineties.
Indeed they were! However, these 2 couples were at opposite ends of the carriage and were oblivious to each other. Or anything else for that matter.
threesomes and foursomes and moresomes are still common
And will increasingly be come Freedom Day! Makes you proud to be British.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
The obsession with race is a disease.
You obviously spend too much time quoffing Massolino Vigna Rionda Riserva rather than mixing with toxic masculine football fans. Racism is a real issue, not something outsiders are obsessing over.
And it's not just football either.
He probably has a point about the Guardian though. It’s gone downhill since Rusbridger left.
Yes it's a terrible paper. All over the place.
I'm a susbcriber - I think it's fine. If you don't like it don't read it.
By all accounts it is not a happy office, at the moment
"Guardian Media Group chief Annette Thomas quits after clash with editor Publishing boss disagreed with Katharine Viner over direction and governance of group"
The New York Times is a huge threat to them, in the medium term
I think the issue for all papers is the decline of print, the switch to online content, and how to make that commercially sustainable.
Gosh, what a startling insight!
With all due respect, I think the papers are aware of this, and the argument is now someway beyond your point. eg the NYT is now making fat profits with a highly effective paywall. As such it is able to expand, on all fronts, and it is aggressively going after UK readers - you can subscribe to the NYT for 50p a week from Blighty
That's a bargain, because the NYT is an excellent paper in many ways, especially if you like obsessive woke-ish race-crazed English language journalism, along with splendid cooking and travel sections. That is to say: it is the Guardian, but richer and more powerful, and that is a potential death warrant for the Guardian
The New York Times (once one ignores any stories about the UK, or at least decontaminate their hysterical anti-Brexit views) is a genuinely excellent newspaper. Really good full length pieces, proper journalism, and you don't need to buy a single cook book again.
I don't regret a penny of my subscription to them.
Agreed. Some excellent overseas reportage, as well. Proper foreign correspondent stuff
The Woke shit is mad, tho, and their coverage of Britain is surreally bad. Indeed, so bad it needs explaining. There must be smart people on the paper who know it is crazed persiflage, why do they allow it?! Is it really just a hatred of Brexit? An association of Brexit with Trump?!
Otherwise, yes, and the Guardian is in trouble
Having spent time in the US, I've come to realise that there is a lot ingrained racism (particularly in the South) than there is in the UK.
For a start, it's much more segregated geographically. In my daughter's year at the local elementary school, I think there was a single African American - and even she was only half African American as her mother was a Swedish model.
Even the most segregated areas of London, like Tower Hamlets and Whitechapel aren't particularly segregated. I used to live 100 yards from Mosque East of Aldgate, and while white English people were in the minority, it wasn't like we were 1-2% of the population.
If you go to some parts of LA, they will be overwhelmingly black, and others will be overwhelmingly Latino, etc.
The schools in these areas have often ended up being starved of money too. Los Angeles is not a single city - it is made up of 88 separate cities with places like Beverly Hills and Bel Air getting enormous amounts of money from property taxes (median family income $250k), while cities like Watts have median incomes of $25k. Their schools can barely afford books, while Beverly Hills High debates a new lacrosse court.
And this is public education I'm talking about.
Most policing is provided by the County, and is overwhelmingly white. This means highly armed white people cruise through poverty stricken areas like an occupying force. Your chance of being traffic stopped as a white person is close to zero, but if you're African American, then the numbers look very different.
Bear in mind, as well, that I'm talking about is in Los Angeles. This is one of the places that has fewest problems, because at least jobs are plentiful - if you don't mind spending 45 minutes in a car getting to and from work each day.
Yes, my last trip to the States - my first proper visit to the Deep South - was highly educational in this respect: how race and racism impact the USA, to this day, in a way we don't experience or understand in the UK
Even something like America's mad tipping culture can be wearily plotted back to slavery
It pisses me off that the Left in UK wants to import all these grievances with no justification. We have plenty of our own problems, without mindlessly mimicking others
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
I think all motorways ought to be toll roads, not just the "M6 toll" near Birmingham.
Tim Spector (ZOE app) says he thinks total cases have plateau, and thinks cases will go down, but very long tail due to euros and further easing of restrictions.
Interestingly he says unvaccinated groups cases dropping as, but big rise in cases in people with 1 dose. Cases in fully vaccinated are up slightly, but nothing like one dose.
Excellent news if it proves to be correct.
Well i think it puts into some context all the anecdotal stories of everybody knowing somebody who is double vaxxed coming down with it. I am sure it is true, but its a bit of familiarity bias...at least with ZOE app, it is a small proportion of the total cases.
Rather depressingly he seems to be of the opinion that covid isn't going away any time soon and still a good chance you will catch it at some point.
An example is the Saville's Manager who is currently suspended and under police investigation.
He's claiming his account was hacked. Not sure how likely that is, but I did wonder just how dumb someone would have to be to have an identifiable Twitter account and a Linkedin account and to say what he said. But then people do stupid things, especially if they've had a bit to drink.
His remarks were disgusting and indefensible but at some level I feel sorry for him.
Given his public notoriety will he ever be able to find work again now? How does he rehabilitate?
Yes, while these things deserve condemnation and even public recasting, lifelong loss of income is an excessively harsh punishment.
No one should have their life destroyed for saying "a word"
Utterly ridiculous. We have gone mad
I used to compare our neurotic obsession with race to the weirdness of Victorian attitudes to sex (covering up naughty chair legs, etc)
I now think we are crazier than the Victorians
Why would anyone hire him? He's effectively taken himself out of the running for the vast majority of jobs by being a racist knobhead. I'm a hiring manager, it would be very difficult to convince me to hire this idiot even to a trivial admin role.
The obsession with race is a disease.
You obviously spend too much time quoffing Massolino Vigna Rionda Riserva rather than mixing with toxic masculine football fans. Racism is a real issue, not something outsiders are obsessing over.
And it's not just football either.
He probably has a point about the Guardian though. It’s gone downhill since Rusbridger left.
Yes it's a terrible paper. All over the place.
I'm a susbcriber - I think it's fine. If you don't like it don't read it.
By all accounts it is not a happy office, at the moment
"Guardian Media Group chief Annette Thomas quits after clash with editor Publishing boss disagreed with Katharine Viner over direction and governance of group"
The New York Times is a huge threat to them, in the medium term
I think the issue for all papers is the decline of print, the switch to online content, and how to make that commercially sustainable.
Gosh, what a startling insight!
With all due respect, I think the papers are aware of this, and the argument is now someway beyond your point. eg the NYT is now making fat profits with a highly effective paywall. As such it is able to expand, on all fronts, and it is aggressively going after UK readers - you can subscribe to the NYT for 50p a week from Blighty
That's a bargain, because the NYT is an excellent paper in many ways, especially if you like obsessive woke-ish race-crazed English language journalism, along with splendid cooking and travel sections. That is to say: it is the Guardian, but richer and more powerful, and that is a potential death warrant for the Guardian
The New York Times (once one ignores any stories about the UK, or at least decontaminate their hysterical anti-Brexit views) is a genuinely excellent newspaper. Really good full length pieces, proper journalism, and you don't need to buy a single cook book again.
I don't regret a penny of my subscription to them.
Agreed. Some excellent overseas reportage, as well. Proper foreign correspondent stuff
The Woke shit is mad, tho, and their coverage of Britain is surreally bad. Indeed, so bad it needs explaining. There must be smart people on the paper who know it is crazed persiflage, why do they allow it?! Is it really just a hatred of Brexit? An association of Brexit with Trump?!
Otherwise, yes, and the Guardian is in trouble
Having spent time in the US, I've come to realise that there is a lot ingrained racism (particularly in the South) than there is in the UK.
For a start, it's much more segregated geographically. In my daughter's year at the local elementary school, I think there was a single African American - and even she was only half African American as her mother was a Swedish model.
Even the most segregated areas of London, like Tower Hamlets and Whitechapel aren't particularly segregated. I used to live 100 yards from Mosque East of Aldgate, and while white English people were in the minority, it wasn't like we were 1-2% of the population.
If you go to some parts of LA, they will be overwhelmingly black, and others will be overwhelmingly Latino, etc.
The schools in these areas have often ended up being starved of money too. Los Angeles is not a single city - it is made up of 88 separate cities with places like Beverly Hills and Bel Air getting enormous amounts of money from property taxes (median family income $250k), while cities like Watts have median incomes of $25k. Their schools can barely afford books, while Beverly Hills High debates a new lacrosse court.
And this is public education I'm talking about.
Most policing is provided by the County, and is overwhelmingly white. This means highly armed white people cruise through poverty stricken areas like an occupying force. Your chance of being traffic stopped as a white person is close to zero, but if you're African American, then the numbers look very different.
Bear in mind, as well, that I'm talking about is in Los Angeles. This is one of the places that has fewest problems, because at least jobs are plentiful - if you don't mind spending 45 minutes in a car getting to and from work each day.
Yes, my last trip to the States - my first proper visit to the Deep South - was highly educational in this respect: how race and racism impact the USA, to this day, in a way we don't experience or understand in the UK
Even something like America's mad tipping culture can be wearily plotted back to slavery
It pisses me off that the Left in UK wants to import all these grievances with no justification. We have plenty of our own problems, without mindlessly mimicking others
That's absolutely right: the UK has many problems, but we don't have to deal with slavery and its aftermath; and our policing is mostly just incompetent rather than actually malicious.
Importing other peoples' issues will not end well.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
I think all motorways ought to be toll roads, not just the "M6 toll" near Birmingham.
They could make up the tax revenues by charging for hunting licenses for drivers of course. Would remove the big polluters and make money for the treasury. Probably need a 2 bag limit per day though
Re Telegraph tax story. Look at the bottom of the page and there is also talk of tax on sugar and salt.
It like the Tories are desperate to piss off their voter base.....the sort of people this will be popular with already have Boris on their naughty list and he isn't coming off anytime soon, because in their opinion he is racist liar who caused Brexit.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
Of course getting folk out of their cars and obesity are in no way linked.
Indeed you'd never have an obese person staying at home, or on the bus, or on the train would you?
Obesity is ~95% to do with food anyway, not how one does or does not commute.
Who mentioned commuting? It isn't in the slightest to do with lardarses who jump Into their car to go 200m to the shop, when it would be as quick to walk. Or drive their kids the same distance to school.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
I support this government as the least worst option.
I disagree with them on many issues. The extortionate amount of road taxes is just another to throw on the list - I agree with them though on having stopped escalating those taxes for the past 11 years at least.
I am not saying I should be charged less for driving and you more for not driving, I am saying that the Treasury should plug its black holes for issues that have nothing to do with driving by taxing everyone.
Road degredation is already budgetted for that's part of road maintenance which is ~£10bn per annum. I'm happy for drivers to pay for that, then drivers are shouldering their own burdens.
The rest though? That's nothing to do with driving.
PS smokers actually cost the health service more than the Treasury raises in smoking duties. You're right that perversely smokers are good for the Treasury but that's not due to taxes, that's because of the fact that smokers die younger saving the Treasury money in pensions and other old-age costs it no longer needs to pay. But that's not a tax, if people die younger they die and the state doesn't give a refund for dying young.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
PS since you're so against vehicles and roads I hope you never get anything delivered by Amazon. Or get any groceries which have been delivered on roads.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Apparently the widespread destruction in some areas of SA is so great it is impacting the basic food supply chain such as bread and milk.
Was talking to a couple of friends there earlier thankfully not affecting their region yet in terms of riotting but they are more worried about it than I have ever seen them
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Simple free market solution if you dont like it....dont drive. I dont I just moved in walking distance of everything I needed...isn't that the point you keep banging on with for a free market. If It costs to much don't do it
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Degradation of life? What am I talking about.....turn my quiet road into a rat run or dual carriage way or route a bypass round the bottom of my garden....all degrade my life
If you believe there is no carbon costs of electric vehicles then frankly you are barking mad
Apparently the widespread destruction in some areas of SA is so great it is impacting the basic food supply chain such as bread and milk.
Was talking to a couple of friends there earlier thankfully not affecting their region yet in terms of riotting but they are more worried about it than I have ever seen them
Some on the stuff on social media is full on, Purge the Movie....
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Degradation of life? What am I talking about.....turn my quiet road into a rat run or dual carriage way or route a bypass round the bottom of my garden....all degrade my life
If you believe there is no carbon costs of electric vehicles then frankly you are barking mad
Oh an health costs....well plenty of evidence of people being killed and hospitalised both by traffic fumes and tyre particulates
I guess as usual you don't know anything about the subject you are pontificating on so end of discussion. I prefer not to talk to the ignorant as you only lower yourself to their level and I prefer to keep my iq over 50
Apparently the widespread destruction in some areas of SA is so great it is impacting the basic food supply chain such as bread and milk.
Was talking to a couple of friends there earlier thankfully not affecting their region yet in terms of riotting but they are more worried about it than I have ever seen them
Some on the stuff on social media is full on, Purge the Movie....
Sadly not armed at the moment I suggested they may want to do so as two females
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Simple free market solution if you dont like it....dont drive. I dont I just moved in walking distance of everything I needed...isn't that the point you keep banging on with for a free market. If It costs to much don't do it
If you want a simple free market solution then absolutely get the state out of the way and let the market decide. If you're happy with that then I am. Privatise the roads, have no taxes whatsoever on cars and let a free market decide.
Oh oops, you've just lost tens of billions of pounds in socialism you want. Oh dear, what a shame.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Simple free market solution if you dont like it....dont drive. I dont I just moved in walking distance of everything I needed...isn't that the point you keep banging on with for a free market. If It costs to much don't do it
If you want a simple free market solution then absolutely get the state out of the way and let the market decide. If you're happy with that then I am. Privatise the roads, have no taxes whatsoever on cars and let a free market decide.
Oh oops, you've just lost tens of billions of pounds in socialism you want. Oh dear, what a shame.
Yes private roads...remind me how many use the m6 toll road. You would hate private roads as you would pay more than you would now in tax so bring it on I say and private road companies would be easier to tax properly. Totally not bothered by that proposition we would probably get more money as we just set the tax rate on them higher like we do gambling companies
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
I support this government as the least worst option.
I disagree with them on many issues. The extortionate amount of road taxes is just another to throw on the list - I agree with them though on having stopped escalating those taxes for the past 11 years at least.
I am not saying I should be charged less for driving and you more for not driving, I am saying that the Treasury should plug its black holes for issues that have nothing to do with driving by taxing everyone.
Road degredation is already budgetted for that's part of road maintenance which is ~£10bn per annum. I'm happy for drivers to pay for that, then drivers are shouldering their own burdens.
The rest though? That's nothing to do with driving.
PS smokers actually cost the health service more than the Treasury raises in smoking duties. You're right that perversely smokers are good for the Treasury but that's not due to taxes, that's because of the fact that smokers die younger saving the Treasury money in pensions and other old-age costs it no longer needs to pay. But that's not a tax, if people die younger they die and the state doesn't give a refund for dying young.
Talking bollocks as usual. It is accepted even by the health service that smokers pay almost twice as much tax as they cost the health service. Stop making shit up
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Simple free market solution if you dont like it....dont drive. I dont I just moved in walking distance of everything I needed...isn't that the point you keep banging on with for a free market. If It costs to much don't do it
If you want a simple free market solution then absolutely get the state out of the way and let the market decide. If you're happy with that then I am. Privatise the roads, have no taxes whatsoever on cars and let a free market decide.
Oh oops, you've just lost tens of billions of pounds in socialism you want. Oh dear, what a shame.
Yes private roads...remind me how many use the m6 toll road. You would hate private roads as you would pay more than you would now in tax so bring it on I say and private road companies would be easier to tax properly. Totally not bothered by that proposition we would probably get more money as we just set the tax rate on them higher like we do gambling companies
Nonsense would it cost more. The difference is today we already pay the tens of billions in pounds per year and drivers do pay for toll roads but they're on top of taxes not instead of them. The Mersey Tunnel Toll is the most common one I pay for and it's cheaper to pay that toll than it is to drive a detour to avoid it.
Anyway you've revealed your red in tooth and claw socialism today. It's interesting, I thought better of you until today I hadn't realised just how envious and socialist you really are.
Hopefully in the future we can have a situation where drivers do indeed pay their costs, but not be exploited to feed socialists like you.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
I support this government as the least worst option.
I disagree with them on many issues. The extortionate amount of road taxes is just another to throw on the list - I agree with them though on having stopped escalating those taxes for the past 11 years at least.
I am not saying I should be charged less for driving and you more for not driving, I am saying that the Treasury should plug its black holes for issues that have nothing to do with driving by taxing everyone.
Road degredation is already budgetted for that's part of road maintenance which is ~£10bn per annum. I'm happy for drivers to pay for that, then drivers are shouldering their own burdens.
The rest though? That's nothing to do with driving.
PS smokers actually cost the health service more than the Treasury raises in smoking duties. You're right that perversely smokers are good for the Treasury but that's not due to taxes, that's because of the fact that smokers die younger saving the Treasury money in pensions and other old-age costs it no longer needs to pay. But that's not a tax, if people die younger they die and the state doesn't give a refund for dying young.
Talking bollocks as usual. It is accepted even by the health service that smokers pay almost twice as much tax as they cost the health service. Stop making shit up
Tim Spector (ZOE app) says he thinks total cases have plateau, and thinks cases will go down, but very long tail due to euros and further easing of restrictions.
Interestingly he says unvaccinated groups cases dropping as, but big rise in cases in people with 1 dose. Cases in fully vaccinated are up slightly, but nothing like one dose.
Excellent news if it proves to be correct.
Well i think it puts into some context all the anecdotal stories of everybody knowing somebody who is double vaxxed coming down with it. I am sure it is true, but its a bit of familiarity bias...at least with ZOE app, it is a small proportion of the total cases.
Rather depressingly he seems to be of the opinion that covid isn't going away any time soon and still a good chance you will catch it at some point.
ZOE has tended to correlate reasonably well with actual cases. Today's numbers still indicate rising though.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
I support this government as the least worst option.
I disagree with them on many issues. The extortionate amount of road taxes is just another to throw on the list - I agree with them though on having stopped escalating those taxes for the past 11 years at least.
I am not saying I should be charged less for driving and you more for not driving, I am saying that the Treasury should plug its black holes for issues that have nothing to do with driving by taxing everyone.
Road degredation is already budgetted for that's part of road maintenance which is ~£10bn per annum. I'm happy for drivers to pay for that, then drivers are shouldering their own burdens.
The rest though? That's nothing to do with driving.
PS smokers actually cost the health service more than the Treasury raises in smoking duties. You're right that perversely smokers are good for the Treasury but that's not due to taxes, that's because of the fact that smokers die younger saving the Treasury money in pensions and other old-age costs it no longer needs to pay. But that's not a tax, if people die younger they die and the state doesn't give a refund for dying young.
Talking bollocks as usual. It is accepted even by the health service that smokers pay almost twice as much tax as they cost the health service. Stop making shit up
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Simple free market solution if you dont like it....dont drive. I dont I just moved in walking distance of everything I needed...isn't that the point you keep banging on with for a free market. If It costs to much don't do it
If you want a simple free market solution then absolutely get the state out of the way and let the market decide. If you're happy with that then I am. Privatise the roads, have no taxes whatsoever on cars and let a free market decide.
Oh oops, you've just lost tens of billions of pounds in socialism you want. Oh dear, what a shame.
Yes private roads...remind me how many use the m6 toll road. You would hate private roads as you would pay more than you would now in tax so bring it on I say and private road companies would be easier to tax properly. Totally not bothered by that proposition we would probably get more money as we just set the tax rate on them higher like we do gambling companies
Nonsense would it cost more. The difference is today we already pay the tens of billions in pounds per year and drivers do pay for toll roads but they're on top of taxes not instead of them. The Mersey Tunnel Toll is the most common one I pay for and it's cheaper to pay that toll than it is to drive a detour to avoid it.
Anyway you've revealed your red in tooth and claw socialism today. It's interesting, I thought better of you until today I hadn't realised just how envious and socialist you really are.
Hopefully in the future we can have a situation where drivers do indeed pay their costs, but not be exploited to feed socialists like you.
I reveal my socialism because I dont want to pay your costs? Really talk to the hand philip
Israeli police have been instructed to step up enforcement of the mask rule. "That’s the fair thing to do, because it’s wrong to have people who are lazy and hurt the rest of the public," Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says - AP
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
I support this government as the least worst option.
I disagree with them on many issues. The extortionate amount of road taxes is just another to throw on the list - I agree with them though on having stopped escalating those taxes for the past 11 years at least.
I am not saying I should be charged less for driving and you more for not driving, I am saying that the Treasury should plug its black holes for issues that have nothing to do with driving by taxing everyone.
Road degredation is already budgetted for that's part of road maintenance which is ~£10bn per annum. I'm happy for drivers to pay for that, then drivers are shouldering their own burdens.
The rest though? That's nothing to do with driving.
PS smokers actually cost the health service more than the Treasury raises in smoking duties. You're right that perversely smokers are good for the Treasury but that's not due to taxes, that's because of the fact that smokers die younger saving the Treasury money in pensions and other old-age costs it no longer needs to pay. But that's not a tax, if people die younger they die and the state doesn't give a refund for dying young.
Talking bollocks as usual. It is accepted even by the health service that smokers pay almost twice as much tax as they cost the health service. Stop making shit up
Tim Spector (ZOE app) says he thinks total cases have plateau, and thinks cases will go down, but very long tail due to euros and further easing of restrictions.
Interestingly he says unvaccinated groups cases dropping as, but big rise in cases in people with 1 dose. Cases in fully vaccinated are up slightly, but nothing like one dose.
Excellent news if it proves to be correct.
Well i think it puts into some context all the anecdotal stories of everybody knowing somebody who is double vaxxed coming down with it. I am sure it is true, but its a bit of familiarity bias...at least with ZOE app, it is a small proportion of the total cases.
Rather depressingly he seems to be of the opinion that covid isn't going away any time soon and still a good chance you will catch it at some point.
ZOE has tended to correlate reasonably well with actual cases. Today's numbers still indicate rising though.
He hasn't made a tweet about this as he usually does, but here in the video his latest take with charts etc.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
What you fail to see is its not just the cost of maintaining roads its also the cost of building them in the first place that is included in your tax bill as well. Everytime they build a road the uncosted part is the degradation of the lives of those that don't drive as well but we have to put up with that shit apparently because "your right to drive"
You think building roads is not part of the road budget?
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
You to prove driving costs you say tax exceeds costs
Figure in health costs Degradation of road costs building new road costs Degradation of life costs Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Absolutely taxes exceed costs.
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree. New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about? Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
Simple free market solution if you dont like it....dont drive. I dont I just moved in walking distance of everything I needed...isn't that the point you keep banging on with for a free market. If It costs to much don't do it
If you want a simple free market solution then absolutely get the state out of the way and let the market decide. If you're happy with that then I am. Privatise the roads, have no taxes whatsoever on cars and let a free market decide.
Oh oops, you've just lost tens of billions of pounds in socialism you want. Oh dear, what a shame.
Yes private roads...remind me how many use the m6 toll road. You would hate private roads as you would pay more than you would now in tax so bring it on I say and private road companies would be easier to tax properly. Totally not bothered by that proposition we would probably get more money as we just set the tax rate on them higher like we do gambling companies
Nonsense would it cost more. The difference is today we already pay the tens of billions in pounds per year and drivers do pay for toll roads but they're on top of taxes not instead of them. The Mersey Tunnel Toll is the most common one I pay for and it's cheaper to pay that toll than it is to drive a detour to avoid it.
Anyway you've revealed your red in tooth and claw socialism today. It's interesting, I thought better of you until today I hadn't realised just how envious and socialist you really are.
Hopefully in the future we can have a situation where drivers do indeed pay their costs, but not be exploited to feed socialists like you.
I reveal my socialism because I dont want to pay your costs? Really talk to the hand philip
No. Because you want to exploit drivers for more than four times their costs.
Labour should worry but it is hard to quantify because you sum together things which cannot meaningfully be added, most obviously SNP & Plaid Cymru. But that is a criticism of the way polls are always reported.
Interesting tax story on the front page of the Telegraph
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
I don't understand why not just replace it by putting a small[ish] charge on electricity.
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Because not all of us have cars, why the hell should I who gave up a car pay more to make up for fuel duty by people who didnt give up their car. Why wfh and therefore helping by not commuting should I be penalised tax wise for doing my bit having to pay more for the electric used for me to work from home. No just fuck off with your extra taxes on people who arent the problem to make up for taxes lost from people who are the problem
How are drivers "the problem" just because you can't exploit us for taxes anymore?
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
Cars don't just cost for roads though as you very well know, the pollution and lowered air quality they cause has a knock on effect on health costs. I would be surprised if car owners paid even half of what they cost the country. Yet you want people like me that did the right thing and dont have a car or use public transport to pay more so you dont have to. Fuck off you so called libertarian as you show your socialist credentials
Socialist because I don't want to be overly taxed for driving?
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Socialist because you want me to be taxed for your driving even though I dont anymore
Nope.
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Big deal so is a lot of things people do, smokers for example contribute about twice as much tax as they cost. The governement which remember you support has decided the right to drive is going to cost drivers x billion. Shut up an either pay it or stop driving that after all is the free market solution
Are you high?
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
You support the conservative governement I dont think that is in any doubt. They havent changed the amount of tax raised from motorists therefore you support that. Not my socialism. You are now however saying you should be charged less for driving and I should be charged more for not driving. That is socialising your costs. Show me figures including health costs, road degradation and lost time due to congestion that is less than the tax you pay. Then agree all the other things people pay more tax like as I said smoking should be reduced to only cost....oh you probably cant do the showing figures and don't want to do the second because you would be shouting about them socialising their costs.
I support this government as the least worst option.
I disagree with them on many issues. The extortionate amount of road taxes is just another to throw on the list - I agree with them though on having stopped escalating those taxes for the past 11 years at least.
I am not saying I should be charged less for driving and you more for not driving, I am saying that the Treasury should plug its black holes for issues that have nothing to do with driving by taxing everyone.
Road degredation is already budgetted for that's part of road maintenance which is ~£10bn per annum. I'm happy for drivers to pay for that, then drivers are shouldering their own burdens.
The rest though? That's nothing to do with driving.
PS smokers actually cost the health service more than the Treasury raises in smoking duties. You're right that perversely smokers are good for the Treasury but that's not due to taxes, that's because of the fact that smokers die younger saving the Treasury money in pensions and other old-age costs it no longer needs to pay. But that's not a tax, if people die younger they die and the state doesn't give a refund for dying young.
Talking bollocks as usual. It is accepted even by the health service that smokers pay almost twice as much tax as they cost the health service. Stop making shit up
No I disputed it by nice saying treating it cost 3.6 billion and the cost of house fires and cleaning butts up was 1 billion. Against a revenue of 9.96 billion almost double as I said. 4 times comes in if you count in reductions in pensions and social care. It did say that in the link but I guess you failed to learn to read.
If I suggested smokers taxes were reduced to actual costs and peoples taxes should be raised to cover costs you would be arguing no its their choice to smoke which is totally correct
You are arguing however motorists taxes should be reduced to cost and the rest of us should be taxed to make up for it.
Personally I say both are personal choice and both can fuck off. You don't need to smoke. You don't need to drive.
Comments
I confess I did find it mildly titillating. Whereas in the 80s a pair of pert, gleaming, suntanned young tits was two a penny on any Med beach, these days this is a rare find, so Yes I had a look, and took pleasure in doing so. Sue me
"Mainstream" social media does seem to have become a middle aged or older persons preserve now not a young persons one.
Bizarrely the only thing I've used Facebook for, for years now, is logging in to apps and games etc - I've almost never posted anything to my Facebook wall in years.
The other is an Xmas party photo from I think 2018 which instantly attached my name to my face on a group photo.
Would NOT have happened in the permissive eighties and nineties.
If someone tweets something derogatory using for example the words "boomer" or "gammon" they don't appear to face disciplinary action and people that fall under the two definitions are expected to work along side them.
On the other hand we have this guy using the N word in a tweet and people saying how can people of colour be expected to work along side them.
Now I personally don't support either tweet but does seem a little double standards. One set of people just expected to put up with it one set "how can we work with him"
Same with miniskirts. If you have great legs and you wear a tiny dress, then you clearly want your legs to be admired.
I don't understand the occasional feminist argument that a woman must be free to wear skimpy clothes but it is somehow wrong for men to then appreciate this? Why else is she doing it?!
Stage 4 happens on Monday, the final PMQs of this session on Wednesday, then its the summer break and its silly season and before you know it politically we're at Conference season and heading into the autumn.
Realistically what happens at PMQs today or next week isn't going to be remembered in six months time. What happens this summer both healthwise and economy wise is going to be remembered.
If the PM has made the right call proceeding to Stage 4 then a challenging PMQs today is not going to be relevant. If the PM has made the wrong call proceeding to Stage 4 then a good PMQs today is not going to be relevant.
There's bigger fish to fry.
"I dress to please myself" is feminist piffle of the first water, ultimately a young heterosexual woman always dresses to please men
What I'd like to know is has the hijab been de facto unbanned in France during the pandemic? "Face-covering" ("la dissimulation du visage") was prohibited and then, turn around for five minutes and it was made compulsory.
I don't regret a penny of my subscription to them.
These days, they're all panamarous, cis-, questioning or somesuch. Can't we just have lesbians again?
The Woke shit is mad, tho, and their coverage of Britain is surreally bad. Indeed, so bad it needs explaining. There must be smart people on the paper who know it is crazed persiflage, why do they allow it?! Is it really just a hatred of Brexit? An association of Brexit with Trump?!
Otherwise, yes, and the Guardian is in trouble
I've not met many self-declared "sapiosexuals" who fancy penniless old philosophers in attics
I'm OK with it, on the whole
trying to work out how to replace fuel duty is proving as awkward as it always has.
Harrowing
I think from memory I worked out once that 0.5p per kWh would cover all of fuel duty and then some - and that's before considering that the amount of kWh consumed is going to jump up dramatically in the next few decades as we switch to electric cars, electric heating etc
Why should those with a car pay more? The money raised from cars is going to fund the general Treasury, its just another tax, its not going to fund roads.
Between fuel duty, VED and VAT on top of fuel duty the government raises over £40bn per annum from drivers as it stands and only about a quarter of that ends up back on road maintenance or upgrades etc - drivers are just a cash crop for the Treasury and the Treasury needs to look elsewhere now.
Drivers are ripped off as it stands and drivers are carrying much more than their share of the burden in taxes in the name of "greenery", well sorry but we're reaching the end of the road for that. Why should drivers continue to be exploited by the taxman so you can sit at home and get the benefits of our taxes for money that is not hypothecated to go back to the roads?
If we spent £40bn per annum on the roads this country would have much better roads to drive upon.
For a start, it's much more segregated geographically. In my daughter's year at the local elementary school, I think there was a single African American - and even she was only half African American as her mother was a Swedish model.
Even the most segregated areas of London, like Tower Hamlets and Whitechapel aren't particularly segregated. I used to live 100 yards from Mosque East of Aldgate, and while white English people were in the minority, it wasn't like we were 1-2% of the population.
If you go to some parts of LA, they will be overwhelmingly black, and others will be overwhelmingly Latino, etc.
The schools in these areas have often ended up being starved of money too. Los Angeles is not a single city - it is made up of 88 separate cities with places like Beverly Hills and Bel Air getting enormous amounts of money from property taxes (median family income $250k), while cities like Watts have median incomes of $25k. Their schools can barely afford books, while Beverly Hills High debates a new lacrosse court.
And this is public education I'm talking about.
Most policing is provided by the County, and is overwhelmingly white. This means highly armed white people cruise through poverty stricken areas like an occupying force. Your chance of being traffic stopped as a white person is close to zero, but if you're African American, then the numbers look very different.
Bear in mind, as well, that I'm talking about is in Los Angeles. This is one of the places that has fewest problems, because at least jobs are plentiful - if you don't mind spending 45 minutes in a car getting to and from work each day.
What pollution? We're talking about post-fuel electric vehicles which in case you missed it are exempt from fuel duty and exempt from VED.
However, these 2 couples were at opposite ends of the carriage and were oblivious to each other. Or anything else for that matter.
What pollution and air quality are electric vehicles that do not have any emissions responsible for?
You are just a socialist wanting to tax people you think you can exploit for the money. There's no ethical or externality reason to tax electric vehicles in the future. The golden goose you've been exploiting is going away.
Interestingly he says unvaccinated groups cases dropping (less of these people plus potentially some herd immunity), but big rise in cases in people with 1 dose. Cases in fully vaccinated are up slightly, but nothing like one dose.
What CO2 are electric-only vehicles putting into the atmosphere precisely and how does that shape with the rest of the nations activities?
My driving is a money earner for the Treasury, not a money drain. Happy to pay the cost of my driving, not happy to pay tens of billions more which is what the Treasury currently exploits drivers for.
Makes you proud to be British.
Even something like America's mad tipping culture can be wearily plotted back to slavery
It pisses me off that the Left in UK wants to import all these grievances with no justification. We have plenty of our own problems, without mindlessly mimicking others
Rather depressingly he seems to be of the opinion that covid isn't going away any time soon and still a good chance you will catch it at some point.
Importing other peoples' issues will not end well.
The free market solution is to abolish the market interference and let people decide what they want to do with their own free choice - it is not to build your system based upon a starting point of wanting to generate tens of billions in taxes to provide for unrelated services and then work from there.
That is socialism and it is what you are unadulteratedly supporting. At least have the self-respect to own your own socialism. I'm happy to pay at market rates the cost of my driving.
Obesity is ~95% to do with food anyway, not how one does or does not commute.
It isn't in the slightest to do with lardarses who jump Into their car to go 200m to the shop, when it would be as quick to walk.
Or drive their kids the same distance to school.
I disagree with them on many issues. The extortionate amount of road taxes is just another to throw on the list - I agree with them though on having stopped escalating those taxes for the past 11 years at least.
I am not saying I should be charged less for driving and you more for not driving, I am saying that the Treasury should plug its black holes for issues that have nothing to do with driving by taxing everyone.
Road degredation is already budgetted for that's part of road maintenance which is ~£10bn per annum. I'm happy for drivers to pay for that, then drivers are shouldering their own burdens.
The rest though? That's nothing to do with driving.
PS smokers actually cost the health service more than the Treasury raises in smoking duties. You're right that perversely smokers are good for the Treasury but that's not due to taxes, that's because of the fact that smokers die younger saving the Treasury money in pensions and other old-age costs it no longer needs to pay. But that's not a tax, if people die younger they die and the state doesn't give a refund for dying young.
What budget is it a part of then? How much does it cost?
PS since you're so against vehicles and roads I hope you never get anything delivered by Amazon. Or get any groceries which have been delivered on roads.
Figure in health costs
Degradation of road costs
building new road costs
Degradation of life costs
Climate change costs
Then if your figure comes out less than what drivers pay explain why you think only drivers should pay their costs when other people get taxed on activities in excess of what they cost
You are arguing that you as a driver should be a special case, frankly no you shouldnt
Health - There is no health cost. Indeed independent research shows that non-drivers tend to be more sedantry than drivers and thus have more health issues by exercising less.
Road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
New road costs - This is part of the road budget. Drivers should pay this I agree.
Degradation of life - What are you talking about?
Climate change - There is no climate change cost for electric vehicles.
I do not want driving to be a special case, quite the opposite. Currently drivers are a special case as the Treasury has been able to exploit drivers as a golden goose.
If you believe there is no carbon costs of electric vehicles then frankly you are barking mad
Latest opinion poll, from Ipsos/Mori:
Labour 31%
LD+SNP+Greens+PC = 26%
The figures at GE2019 were:
Labour 33%
LD+SNP+Greens+PC = 19%.
I guess as usual you don't know anything about the subject you are pontificating on so end of discussion. I prefer not to talk to the ignorant as you only lower yourself to their level and I prefer to keep my iq over 50
Oh oops, you've just lost tens of billions of pounds in socialism you want. Oh dear, what a shame.
Anyway you've revealed your red in tooth and claw socialism today. It's interesting, I thought better of you until today I hadn't realised just how envious and socialist you really are.
Hopefully in the future we can have a situation where drivers do indeed pay their costs, but not be exploited to feed socialists like you.
"The government spends £3.6 billion treating smoking-attributable diseases on the NHS and up to £1 billion collecting cigarette butts and extinguishing smoking-related house fires. But these costs are covered more than four times over by early death savings and tobacco duty revenue. • In the absence of smoking"
source https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/document?id=1877152&returnUrl=search?q=cost+to+the+nhs+of+smoking+related+diseases
revenue from smoking
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/#:~:text=Tobacco duty tax receipts in the UK 2000-2021&text=In 2020/21, tobacco duty,in the previous financial year
9.96 billion
Anyway costs of smoking once you add in various factors range around over £12 BN.
https://ash.org.uk/media-and-news/press-releases-media-and-news/true-cost-of-smoking-revealed-in-advance-of-world-no-tobacco-day/#:~:text=The figures show the additional,social care needs [1].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwUSC6rid4A
If I suggested smokers taxes were reduced to actual costs and peoples taxes should be raised to cover costs you would be arguing no its their choice to smoke which is totally correct
You are arguing however motorists taxes should be reduced to cost and the rest of us should be taxed to make up for it.
Personally I say both are personal choice and both can fuck off. You don't need to smoke. You don't need to drive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9788327/England-flare-man-spotted-snorting-white-substance-ahead-Wembley-final.html