Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
The issue is that the MHRA has approved Pfizer for 12-17 year olds but a different branch of the government thinks it knows better than the regulator. Since the state has got a monopoly on supply it leaves parents and teenagers shit out of luck if they want to get vaccinated. More countries are going to put up the double jab wall for 12-17 year olds as they get to a stage where they can offer it. We can but for some stupid exceptionalist reasons have chose not to. Apparently British kids are completely different to American, Canadian and French ones where the vaccine is available to them.
If I was a parent of a 12-17 year old I'd be absolutely livid right now. I'm not and it's still a stupid decision.
Apparently all people in the UK with such children need to do is to go to the US or Israel and get jabbed privately.
More than 40,000 pupils were formally taken out of school in the UK between September 2020 and April 2021, compared with an average of 23,000 over the previous two years.
So about 17,000 children.
I wasn't been serious.
I think it is risky policy for the government though. If there is some kid of well connected parents i can see some massive uproar, and many parents are obviously very protective of their kids and us humans already piss poor at evaluating risk.
But isn't the point that COVID is very unlikely to cause serious harm to children? As good as the vaccines are, I can see why it's not an obvious slam dunk to start jabbing kids.
The issue is the double jab walls that are going up all over the world. When we do eventually reopen travel to the US it's almost a certainty that they will require everyone 12+ to be double jabbed. How do families get to Disneyworld? If it was made available privately then that's fair enough but the government has decided that the MHRA is run by idiots and had another body countermand the regulator.
I'll be honest, I don't know the precise details of the pros and cons of this. Clearly the politicians will at some point have to think about how we view the global travel situation. But on the Disney World point, if we don't vax 12-18 year olds, that's as much of an issue for them as for us. When I went in 2001, I reckon around 50% of the people there were British.
Honestly, they won't care. The US will make it a requirement and parents will be left wondering how to get their kids jabbed. Soon the US will bring approval for 8+ and Moderna are testing their vaccine for 5+.
This is the wrong decision for millions of families across the country and for millions of kids who are now consigned to another year of idiotic bubbles and isolation. The clamour to bring them back in September will be huge as soon as the first 13 year old goes to hospital and the parents scream that this was avoidable with isolation bubbles.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
Is dickhead offensive to men, then? Or wanker offensive to masturbators? Or the F word offensive to people who engage in acts of procreation? I don't really buy the argument that twat or indeed its close relation is offensive to women. In the US where the C word is usually directed at women, and is much less socially acceptable than it is here, you could perhaps make that argument. My wife is a hardcore feminist and uses both words fairly regularly, as do I.
As a bisexual girlfriend of mine used to say, don't cal him a cunt, cunts are nice.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
You? Giving people advise on showing themselves up?
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
Good choice for a day off - not sure. As the song goes, "feeling hot, hot, hot" (in a meteorological sense, as distinct from any other).
"Freedom Day" - I think we've had about five of these and no one's quite got it right yet.
I shall venture shortly to see if the great unwashed (it's an expression not based on empirical or olfactory observation) of East Ham have "set down their masks" in the cause of freedom.
Personal view - I'm certainly going to continue to wear one on the Underground (it's part of the Conditions of Carriage). South Western Railways are taking a different line saying "In line with government guidance, we have removed advice about social distancing and expect passengers, out of respect for others, to wear face coverings in crowded places". I infer from that if I'm sitting on my own in a carriage I don't need to wear a mask.
Shops and supermarkets - if they ask me to wear a mask, I will, if not, I'll take a view based on how busy the shop is.
Night life: I'm more lamb bhuna than lambada so I don't care about nightclubs. As for pubs, I like the "new way" of table service and ordering off the app and it seems to suit a lot of people from what I've seen.
I wouldn't say I'm not concerned - I don't want to catch Covid, not because I'm worried I'll die but it's an unpleasant thing I could do without. I'm sure once the unvaccinated have been "gone through" we'll see, as we did early last summer, a pretty rapid drop off in cases.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
Hi again all, just back for a whinge after some sanity time off the site :-)
My lad tested positive (PCR) last week and has been self-isolating since then, as have I and my partner. The issue is with my partner's daughter, a university student, who was at home with us but left to visit a friend just before my son tested positive. My partner convinced my son not to mention her to Track and Trace, and her daughter has also decided to disregard the ping she received due to her earlier proximity to my lad (they were sitting next to each other on the sofa).
Now my partner's daughter has returned from her visit and is planning to return to her university town by train today (3 different trains, in fact!). She has simply decided that she doesn't want to be cooped up here for a week and would rather be back with her boyfriend and uni friends.
Is it unreasonable for me to be pretty pissed off with this? Or am I overreacting, given that half the country seems to be ignoring the rules in any case?
Hi Feersum, I've been in a similar situation - where I have an option to be pretty pissed off if I wanted to but no actual option to do anything to change anyone's behaviour. I have dealt with it by rationalising that a) come August 19th or whenever the date is this behaviour will be perfectly legal and b) had the the rules changed earlier we would be there anyway. Unfortunately, if I am reading this right, this isn't a situation where you have any options to do the right thing, only options over how other people's actions make you feel. And for your own mental health, if you can, it's always easiest to avoid the outrage option, despite the dopamine hit it gives you.
I see the Scottish Government is focussing on the big issues:
More than half of all Scottish Government staff say they have no intention of using pronouns in their email signatures, according to a recent internal survey.
The rejection comes ahead of a new civil service ‘pronoun pledge initiative’, which aims to “promote diversity and encourage inclusivity within the Scottish Government” by educating and raising awareness of “gender identities and pronoun use across the organisation to create and foster an open culture that is supportive of the LGBTI+ Community”.
I see the Scottish Government is focussing on the big issues:
More than half of all Scottish Government staff say they have no intention of using pronouns in their email signatures, according to a recent internal survey.
The rejection comes ahead of a new civil service ‘pronoun pledge initiative’, which aims to “promote diversity and encourage inclusivity within the Scottish Government” by educating and raising awareness of “gender identities and pronoun use across the organisation to create and foster an open culture that is supportive of the LGBTI+ Community”.
No doubt anyone who doesn’t add their pronouns will be labelled bigots or worse and eventually be forced to.
If people want to use pronouns then fill your boots but if people don’t just live and let live
Never understood this. The pronoun I will use when talking to someone is “you”. That I would be talking about you to a third person is a little presumptuous
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
I see the Scottish Government is focussing on the big issues:
More than half of all Scottish Government staff say they have no intention of using pronouns in their email signatures, according to a recent internal survey.
The rejection comes ahead of a new civil service ‘pronoun pledge initiative’, which aims to “promote diversity and encourage inclusivity within the Scottish Government” by educating and raising awareness of “gender identities and pronoun use across the organisation to create and foster an open culture that is supportive of the LGBTI+ Community”.
No doubt anyone who doesn’t add their pronouns will be labelled bigots or worse and eventually be forced to.
If people want to use pronouns then fill your boots but if people don’t just live and let live
Never understood this. The pronoun I will use when talking to someone is “you”. That I would be talking about you to a third person is a little presumptuous
I tend to use you and also they, for example if someone asked me where someone was I would say ‘they are in a meeting’.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
The reason I come here is that there is a balance of opinion and people willing to discuss reasonably the issues of the day. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise or the free funds to bet, but I am continually challenged by the wisdom shown
What RP and others who use abusive, or highly partisan language should realise is that they are the ones I tend to ignore. RPs problem is that Boris is lying and people don't care. He calls them fools and idiots, but for most people the U turn yesterday will have hardly registered - in fact they so loosely follow the news that it doesn't matter but they do notice those who cannot hide their hatred of Boris angrily calling them idiots.
As I said earlier make your point and say why it is important, but I tell my kids off for name calling so I don't expect it here, and I for one am likely to ignore those posts.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Final thought on this stupid decision. The UK saying no is succour to anti-vaxxers. Just as the stupid German newspaper and health ministers trashing AZ back in January undermined the rollout of AZ in Europe and the rest of the world, our decision has global implications. Essentially the UK government is saying that it's safer for kids to get COVID than it is to get vaccinated. That is a seriously dangerous position to hold when we know the side effects from Pfizer are extremely limited and rare and not life threatening or life altering.
This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions from the government I've seen in the pandemic. The next one will be limiting booster shots to 40+ meaning under 40s will become super-spreaders in December and the government will cancel Christmas, again.
JCVI's Anthony Harnden tells @theipaper that people getting 2nd dose of covid vaccine less than 8wks after their 1st are "definitely less protected against asymptomatic disease".
Govt accused of "communication failure" in failing to get this point across. https://t.co/c4BiSBKdEp
Maybe this varies by vaccination centre. At mine you really had to argue your way into getting a jab less than 8 weeks and could only do so at the end of the day, using spare shots.
It was take before the events of the weekend but after the soccer racism issue which saw the govt take some flak.
Arhh yes Patel is a racist enabler.....Tories +2.....
I keep saying but i am befuddled that Tories haven't taken a hit, even if you don't buy into the taking the knee row, there are a load of other things that i would have thought would have hit the Tories numbers, Hancock scandal, worried about rise in covid, pingademic meaning you are having to isolate again, or your kid off schools for the 4th time in 6 weeks due to sitting in the same room as a plague carrier.
Regarding holidays and vaccines, surely there is a simple solution - don't go on holiday abroad. Both the UK and the destination country are free (and likely) to change their entry requirements potentially when you can't avoid the consequences.
So don't bother this year.
In general that sounds fine, but there will be a lot of people for whom it isn't a simple holiday, but the first chance to see family for two years.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Nothing. It has entirely detached from its original meaning, and we are now at the stage where it is offensive purely because it's offensive.
Hi again all, just back for a whinge after some sanity time off the site :-)
My lad tested positive (PCR) last week and has been self-isolating since then, as have I and my partner. The issue is with my partner's daughter, a university student, who was at home with us but left to visit a friend just before my son tested positive. My partner convinced my son not to mention her to Track and Trace, and her daughter has also decided to disregard the ping she received due to her earlier proximity to my lad (they were sitting next to each other on the sofa).
Now my partner's daughter has returned from her visit and is planning to return to her university town by train today (3 different trains, in fact!). She has simply decided that she doesn't want to be cooped up here for a week and would rather be back with her boyfriend and uni friends.
Is it unreasonable for me to be pretty pissed off with this? Or am I overreacting, given that half the country seems to be ignoring the rules in any case?
Hi Feersum, I've been in a similar situation - where I have an option to be pretty pissed off if I wanted to but no actual option to do anything to change anyone's behaviour. I have dealt with it by rationalising that a) come August 19th or whenever the date is this behaviour will be perfectly legal and b) had the the rules changed earlier we would be there anyway. Unfortunately, if I am reading this right, this isn't a situation where you have any options to do the right thing, only options over how other people's actions make you feel. And for your own mental health, if you can, it's always easiest to avoid the outrage option, despite the dopamine hit it gives you.
Easier said than done, I know!
Cheers for that, Cookie.
You're right that I don't really have the option to change anything. My partner's daughter certainly won't listen to me, and my partner is quite desperate to stay on good terms with her daughter. It just seems so selfish, especially given that she'd only have to stay a week and was planning to stay for another couple of days in any case (albeit not cooped up in the house/garden).
But it's true that her actions probably won't make much difference in the grand scheme of things, given the general prevalence of the virus. So perhaps I should just swallow my annoyance and save rocking the boat. I can't help being disappointed in her though, and, to a lesser extent, my partner for making my son lie by omission and for facilitating her daughter's actions (especially given that she works for the NHS, though not in a front line role).
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
I guess it’s a question of personal taste. I think the latter two are often used in jest, while the former is only ever an attack. But these things change over time.
I disagree , in Scotland all three just mean you are "stupid" , I could have said a plonker but that would just add to the silliness.
We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
I asked felix about this yesterday.
He thinks it's funny.
And I told you that I think YOU are funny! Stop lying!
Big call by JVCI / government not to vaccinate kids, going against what many western countries....herd immunity for kids.
I wonder how this will go down with parents?
Friend of mine, three children oldest 13, planned to go to Malta. Who require jabs for everyone over 12. WTF do they do? (Actually they split up mother went with two younger children, father stayed with oldest). It's ridiculous. No idea whether we or Malta (and others?) should change our policy.
Get the vaccine privately. It’s been authorised by the MHRA (according to someone who posted on here - haven’t checked). Why should your mate have a handout from the taxpayer so he can go on holiday?
Where ? How ? Is there some secret pharmacy that is providing them. I'd love to be able to tell my brother where he can vaccinate* my niece but y'know supply is 100% with the government now.
* Up to him and her, obvs
Israel or the US
Fuck off Charles. Just fuck off.
TBH I didn’t know that the government had monopolised supply. Sorry.
JCVI's Anthony Harnden tells @theipaper that people getting 2nd dose of covid vaccine less than 8wks after their 1st are "definitely less protected against asymptomatic disease".
Govt accused of "communication failure" in failing to get this point across. https://t.co/c4BiSBKdEp
Maybe this varies by vaccination centre. At mine you really had to argue your way into getting a jab less than 8 weeks and could only do so at the end of the day, using spare shots.
Maybe at walk-in clinics this is more common.
This is another individual v the population problem. It's in an individual's interest to get their second dose of pfizer/moderna asap (though, at least three weeks after the first), but that's not so great in terms of stopping the spread of the virus.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
No, I’m not. I don’t like him.
I just think the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. Why use it when there are alternatives available.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Nothing. It has entirely detached from its original meaning, and we are now at the stage where it is offensive purely because it's offensive.
Like calling someone fag, gay or retard? Or would you not use that language?
Its offensive because of attitudes towards women, just like calling someone a fag is offensive due to attitudes towards gays etc - thankfully since the 80s we have moved on and most people wouldn't use that language any more.
Demeaning women is considered a lot more appropriate to some people than demeaning other groups.
Though this is currently a very male dominated conversation, I'd be curious what actual women on this site have to say about this and attitudes and abuse towards women. Like @Cyclefree etc? But speaking personally, offline, I know my wife and mother both hate those terms being used as insults - and that's enough for me to have enough respect not to use them.
JCVI's Anthony Harnden tells @theipaper that people getting 2nd dose of covid vaccine less than 8wks after their 1st are "definitely less protected against asymptomatic disease".
Govt accused of "communication failure" in failing to get this point across. https://t.co/c4BiSBKdEp
Maybe this varies by vaccination centre. At mine you really had to argue your way into getting a jab less than 8 weeks and could only do so at the end of the day, using spare shots.
Maybe at walk-in clinics this is more common.
I was invited at 3 weeks post 1st pfizer and took up the offer, I did have a bit of reservation but figured it would be incredibly self indulgent to not take up the offer when err offered.
If Irvine Welsh's dialogue is accurate, c--t in (some dialects of) Scots is entirely neutral and just means "person." There's a scene where Begbie throws a beer glass into a crowded bar and then says "Nae c--t leaves this pub till I find out who threw that glass."
Final thought on this stupid decision. The UK saying no is succour to anti-vaxxers. Just as the stupid German newspaper and health ministers trashing AZ back in January undermined the rollout of AZ in Europe and the rest of the world, our decision has global implications. Essentially the UK government is saying that it's safer for kids to get COVID than it is to get vaccinated. That is a seriously dangerous position to hold when we know the side effects from Pfizer are extremely limited and rare and not life threatening or life altering.
This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions from the government I've seen in the pandemic. The next one will be limiting booster shots to 40+ meaning under 40s will become super-spreaders in December and the government will cancel Christmas, again.
I think that there is also an element of being penny wise and pound foolish.
Salami slicing the cost of the vaccination programme would be one of the more idiotic attempts to save money, but that looks like what it is to me.
Hi again all, just back for a whinge after some sanity time off the site :-)
My lad tested positive (PCR) last week and has been self-isolating since then, as have I and my partner. The issue is with my partner's daughter, a university student, who was at home with us but left to visit a friend just before my son tested positive. My partner convinced my son not to mention her to Track and Trace, and her daughter has also decided to disregard the ping she received due to her earlier proximity to my lad (they were sitting next to each other on the sofa).
Now my partner's daughter has returned from her visit and is planning to return to her university town by train today (3 different trains, in fact!). She has simply decided that she doesn't want to be cooped up here for a week and would rather be back with her boyfriend and uni friends.
Is it unreasonable for me to be pretty pissed off with this? Or am I overreacting, given that half the country seems to be ignoring the rules in any case?
It’s completely understandable to be pissed off, but in the interests of domestic harmony I’d keep stumm!
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
He is invisible, weaker than ditch water.
Well when he pops up with his drony gordon brittas impression, everytime he gives it the big government sre shit, boris is useless and corrupt, all this opening up is totally reckless and its all a massive gamble...so you wouldn't do it.......radio silence....i would tell people to wear a mask and open the windows.
Vaccine anecdote. My 15yo niece tested positive for Covid yesterday. Thinks she got it from someone at school on Wednesday last week. Apparently there are lots of kids who just don't bother with tests anymore or if they do and they get a positive they just ignore it. With this approach then it is no wonder Covid is spreading rapidly in schools. My niece has a headache, tired muscles and a runny nose but I'm sure she will be better very soon.
I think there should be a drop in cases caused by schools finishing for the Summer. Whether this is then cancelled out by nightclubs etc. is another matter!
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
I would just ask would you say it the presence of women
JCVI's Anthony Harnden tells @theipaper that people getting 2nd dose of covid vaccine less than 8wks after their 1st are "definitely less protected against asymptomatic disease".
Govt accused of "communication failure" in failing to get this point across. https://t.co/c4BiSBKdEp
Maybe this varies by vaccination centre. At mine you really had to argue your way into getting a jab less than 8 weeks and could only do so at the end of the day, using spare shots.
Maybe at walk-in clinics this is more common.
This is another individual v the population problem. It's in an individual's interest to get their second dose of pfizer/moderna asap (though, at least three weeks after the first), but that's not so great in terms of stopping the spread of the virus.
The issue here is that the government failed to procure enough Pfizer and Moderna for delivery in Q1/2 meaning that under 40s are now scrambling to get second doses before the end of the summer so they can actually have some semblance of normal life.
Our vaccine programme had a great start but since around March it has completely gone to shit with a complete lack of foresight on what we would need for Q2 to be done and dusted before the summer. It's also around the time that Kate Bingham resigned and the Whitehall bods got their hands on the VTF.
“If you want a vaccine for your child so bad you should stop complaining and simply fly to Israel or the US to get it done, like any reasonable parent would do” - @Charles
I hadn’t realised that the government had monopolised supply… that US/Israel comment was trolling once I did… but if anyone was properly upset that wasn’t the intention so I apologise
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
C**t is too far for anything , akin to someone spitting in your face, just not acceptable at all.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
The reason I come here is that there is a balance of opinion and people willing to discuss reasonably the issues of the day. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise or the free funds to bet, but I am continually challenged by the wisdom shown
What RP and others who use abusive, or highly partisan language should realise is that they are the ones I tend to ignore. RPs problem is that Boris is lying and people don't care. He calls them fools and idiots, but for most people the U turn yesterday will have hardly registered - in fact they so loosely follow the news that it doesn't matter but they do notice those who cannot hide their hatred of Boris angrily calling them idiots.
As I said earlier make your point and say why it is important, but I tell my kids off for name calling so I don't expect it here, and I for one am likely to ignore those posts.
No love, my problem is that Boris lies. The general public largely don't do politics, follow the nuances, the breaking news. Its only the Big Stuff that gets through so most of it will go unnoticed.
I call the PB Clown Apologists "fools and idiots" because they are giving succour to this prannock who has brought their party into such disrepute. Power was supposed to be for a purpose - what is His purpose?
Vaccine anecdote. My 15yo niece tested positive for Covid yesterday. Thinks she got it from someone at school on Wednesday last week. Apparently there are lots of kids who just don't bother with tests anymore or if they do and they get a positive they just ignore it. With this approach then it is no wonder Covid is spreading rapidly in schools. My niece has a headache, tired muscles and a runny nose but I'm sure she will be better very soon.
I think there should be a drop in cases caused by schools finishing for the Summer. Whether this is then cancelled out by nightclubs etc. is another matter!
I thought they were all faking them with lemon juice to get out of going to school?
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Nothing. It has entirely detached from its original meaning, and we are now at the stage where it is offensive purely because it's offensive.
Like calling someone fag, gay or retard? Or would you not use that language?
Its offensive because of attitudes towards women, just like calling someone a fag is offensive due to attitudes towards gays etc - thankfully since the 80s we have moved on and most people wouldn't use that language any more.
Demeaning women is considered a lot more appropriate to some people than demeaning other groups.
Though this is currently a very male dominated conversation, I'd be curious what actual women on this site have to say about this and attitudes and abuse towards women. Like @Cyclefree etc? But speaking personally, offline, I know my wife and mother both hate those terms being used as insults - and that's enough for me to have enough respect not to use them.
Wrong, and your counterexamples are so badly off point it is hard to know where to start with them. They refer to people with characteristic x y or z, not to an anatomical part. In fact you've got it back to front, c--t is a strong swear word because of the enormity of blasphemous reference to something ineffably pure. It is in fact a wholly feminist word.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
I guess it’s a question of personal taste. I think the latter two are often used in jest, while the former is only ever an attack. But these things change over time.
Yeah. Even the C word is often used affectionately by a lot of people. Context is everything.
I’m not sure @IanB2 was being affectionate about Boris!
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We're all anoraks, we fallow every single little thing that any of them do. That isn't normal - the non-political which is most people don't even hear about such things.
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Yes, typically it is. On the second I think there is probably something in what you say, but it is far less conscious and structured than you are suggesting. It could be to do with womens bodies being more taboo decades and centuries ago, rather than the intent of the person using the word today.
Final thought on this stupid decision. The UK saying no is succour to anti-vaxxers. Just as the stupid German newspaper and health ministers trashing AZ back in January undermined the rollout of AZ in Europe and the rest of the world, our decision has global implications. Essentially the UK government is saying that it's safer for kids to get COVID than it is to get vaccinated. That is a seriously dangerous position to hold when we know the side effects from Pfizer are extremely limited and rare and not life threatening or life altering.
This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions from the government I've seen in the pandemic. The next one will be limiting booster shots to 40+ meaning under 40s will become super-spreaders in December and the government will cancel Christmas, again.
I think that there is also an element of being penny wise and pound foolish.
Salami slicing the cost of the vaccination programme would be one of the more idiotic attempts to save money, but that looks like what it is to me.
But it can't be money saving, we've already paid for an additional 60m doses of Pfizer at a cost of ~$1.2bn, the money is already spent.
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We're all anoraks, we fallow every single little thing that any of them do. That isn't normal - the non-political which is most people don't even hear about such things.
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
I don't think the trouble at the football or the racist abuse of some of the footballers escaped notice.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
It’s all context specific. Scotland is, in my experience, more sweary than England, and England is by some degrees of magnitude more sweary than the USA. In my experience, in England, the c-word is almost exclusively used to describe men, whereas on the rare occasions I’ve heard it used in the US it was in relation to women, which shocked me more - but there’s no rhyme or reason to it. It’s a question of “when in Rome” and all that.
Vaccine anecdote. My 15yo niece tested positive for Covid yesterday. Thinks she got it from someone at school on Wednesday last week. Apparently there are lots of kids who just don't bother with tests anymore or if they do and they get a positive they just ignore it. With this approach then it is no wonder Covid is spreading rapidly in schools. My niece has a headache, tired muscles and a runny nose but I'm sure she will be better very soon.
I think there should be a drop in cases caused by schools finishing for the Summer. Whether this is then cancelled out by nightclubs etc. is another matter!
It was a similar story with my lad. Slight headache and a bit achy but otherwise fine. He almost certainly caught it from one of his classmates too, given that most of them also have it.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
The reason I come here is that there is a balance of opinion and people willing to discuss reasonably the issues of the day. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise or the free funds to bet, but I am continually challenged by the wisdom shown
What RP and others who use abusive, or highly partisan language should realise is that they are the ones I tend to ignore. RPs problem is that Boris is lying and people don't care. He calls them fools and idiots, but for most people the U turn yesterday will have hardly registered - in fact they so loosely follow the news that it doesn't matter but they do notice those who cannot hide their hatred of Boris angrily calling them idiots.
As I said earlier make your point and say why it is important, but I tell my kids off for name calling so I don't expect it here, and I for one am likely to ignore those posts.
No love, my problem is that Boris lies. The general public largely don't do politics, follow the nuances, the breaking news. Its only the Big Stuff that gets through so most of it will go unnoticed.
I call the PB Clown Apologists "fools and idiots" because they are giving succour to this prannock who has brought their party into such disrepute. Power was supposed to be for a purpose - what is His purpose?
Final thought on this stupid decision. The UK saying no is succour to anti-vaxxers. Just as the stupid German newspaper and health ministers trashing AZ back in January undermined the rollout of AZ in Europe and the rest of the world, our decision has global implications. Essentially the UK government is saying that it's safer for kids to get COVID than it is to get vaccinated. That is a seriously dangerous position to hold when we know the side effects from Pfizer are extremely limited and rare and not life threatening or life altering.
This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions from the government I've seen in the pandemic. The next one will be limiting booster shots to 40+ meaning under 40s will become super-spreaders in December and the government will cancel Christmas, again.
AIUI, the UK have not said no to vaccinating kids, they are waiting and seeing.
If Irvine Welsh's dialogue is accurate, c--t in (some dialects of) Scots is entirely neutral and just means "person." There's a scene where Begbie throws a beer glass into a crowded bar and then says "Nae c--t leaves this pub till I find out who threw that glass."
Worse than that - "That lassie got glassed and no Boris leaves here til we find oot what Boris did it"
Vaccine anecdote. My 15yo niece tested positive for Covid yesterday. Thinks she got it from someone at school on Wednesday last week. Apparently there are lots of kids who just don't bother with tests anymore or if they do and they get a positive they just ignore it. With this approach then it is no wonder Covid is spreading rapidly in schools. My niece has a headache, tired muscles and a runny nose but I'm sure she will be better very soon.
I think there should be a drop in cases caused by schools finishing for the Summer. Whether this is then cancelled out by nightclubs etc. is another matter!
It was a similar story with my lad. Slight headache and a bit achy but otherwise fine. He almost certainly caught it from one of his classmates too, given that most of them also have it.
Herd immunity incoming....
Perhaps we need to have run all the big festivals this summer and just made them under 18 only!
But dad, i don't want to see Radiohead live...it will do you good son. When i were a lad, we all had to listen to them.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
I would just ask would you say it the presence of women
Women are not an homogenised mass. In front of my gran, never, my mother, no problem, my partner, same (the former two are dead so somewhat academic).
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
The reason I come here is that there is a balance of opinion and people willing to discuss reasonably the issues of the day. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise or the free funds to bet, but I am continually challenged by the wisdom shown
What RP and others who use abusive, or highly partisan language should realise is that they are the ones I tend to ignore. RPs problem is that Boris is lying and people don't care. He calls them fools and idiots, but for most people the U turn yesterday will have hardly registered - in fact they so loosely follow the news that it doesn't matter but they do notice those who cannot hide their hatred of Boris angrily calling them idiots.
As I said earlier make your point and say why it is important, but I tell my kids off for name calling so I don't expect it here, and I for one am likely to ignore those posts.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
The reason I come here is that there is a balance of opinion and people willing to discuss reasonably the issues of the day. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise or the free funds to bet, but I am continually challenged by the wisdom shown
What RP and others who use abusive, or highly partisan language should realise is that they are the ones I tend to ignore. RPs problem is that Boris is lying and people don't care. He calls them fools and idiots, but for most people the U turn yesterday will have hardly registered - in fact they so loosely follow the news that it doesn't matter but they do notice those who cannot hide their hatred of Boris angrily calling them idiots.
As I said earlier make your point and say why it is important, but I tell my kids off for name calling so I don't expect it here, and I for one am likely to ignore those posts.
No love, my problem is that Boris lies. The general public largely don't do politics, follow the nuances, the breaking news. Its only the Big Stuff that gets through so most of it will go unnoticed.
I call the PB Clown Apologists "fools and idiots" because they are giving succour to this prannock who has brought their party into such disrepute. Power was supposed to be for a purpose - what is His purpose?
To annoy you maybe !!!!!!
Apparently! It isn't doing anything else productive. That even you have said enough is enough shows how bad things have got...
Final thought on this stupid decision. The UK saying no is succour to anti-vaxxers. Just as the stupid German newspaper and health ministers trashing AZ back in January undermined the rollout of AZ in Europe and the rest of the world, our decision has global implications. Essentially the UK government is saying that it's safer for kids to get COVID than it is to get vaccinated. That is a seriously dangerous position to hold when we know the side effects from Pfizer are extremely limited and rare and not life threatening or life altering.
This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions from the government I've seen in the pandemic. The next one will be limiting booster shots to 40+ meaning under 40s will become super-spreaders in December and the government will cancel Christmas, again.
I think that there is also an element of being penny wise and pound foolish.
Salami slicing the cost of the vaccination programme would be one of the more idiotic attempts to save money, but that looks like what it is to me.
But it can't be money saving, we've already paid for an additional 60m doses of Pfizer at a cost of ~$1.2bn, the money is already spent.
I expect a common rhinovirus cold gives heart inflammation at a far greater rate than the Pfizer vaccine tbh - some advice to avoid strenuous exercise for a couple of days after is all that's needed. This is very low cost advice.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Nothing. It has entirely detached from its original meaning, and we are now at the stage where it is offensive purely because it's offensive.
Like calling someone fag, gay or retard? Or would you not use that language?
Its offensive because of attitudes towards women, just like calling someone a fag is offensive due to attitudes towards gays etc - thankfully since the 80s we have moved on and most people wouldn't use that language any more.
Demeaning women is considered a lot more appropriate to some people than demeaning other groups.
Though this is currently a very male dominated conversation, I'd be curious what actual women on this site have to say about this and attitudes and abuse towards women. Like @Cyclefree etc? But speaking personally, offline, I know my wife and mother both hate those terms being used as insults - and that's enough for me to have enough respect not to use them.
Wrong, and your counterexamples are so badly off point it is hard to know where to start with them. They refer to people with characteristic x y or z, not to an anatomical part. In fact you've got it back to front, c--t is a strong swear word because of the enormity of blasphemous reference to something ineffably pure. It is in fact a wholly feminist word.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Nothing. It has entirely detached from its original meaning, and we are now at the stage where it is offensive purely because it's offensive.
Like calling someone fag, gay or retard? Or would you not use that language?
Its offensive because of attitudes towards women, just like calling someone a fag is offensive due to attitudes towards gays etc - thankfully since the 80s we have moved on and most people wouldn't use that language any more.
Demeaning women is considered a lot more appropriate to some people than demeaning other groups.
Though this is currently a very male dominated conversation, I'd be curious what actual women on this site have to say about this and attitudes and abuse towards women. Like @Cyclefree etc? But speaking personally, offline, I know my wife and mother both hate those terms being used as insults - and that's enough for me to have enough respect not to use them.
Wrong, and your counterexamples are so badly off point it is hard to know where to start with them. They refer to people with characteristic x y or z, not to an anatomical part. In fact you've got it back to front, c--t is a strong swear word because of the enormity of blasphemous reference to something ineffably pure. It is in fact a wholly feminist word.
I'm sure everyone here using it is doing so for feminist reasons.
After a dismal month for the Tories, the latest YouGov poll has found Boris Johnson's party has slumped to a 13% lead over Labour (2% up from last time)
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
I don't think the usage of the word necessarily reflects anything about purity and cleanliness, rather it's surely the general taboo about anything related to sexual intercourse. I imagine that the fact that the C word is considered more taboo than its male equivalents reflects the fact that women have traditionally been seen as the carrier of a family's honour and virtue, so referring to the female sex organ might be considered as the greater violation of taboo. Similarly, dishonouring someone's mother usually being seen as worse than dishonouring their father. Things have changed as society has become more secular, but using words like God or Jesus for cursing also used to be highly taboo, and that certainly wasn't because they were considered impure. People have different tastes of course, and I try not to say anything offensive on here anyway, but I really don't see either twat or the C word as being offensive to women, and it is certainly not my intention in using them.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
The reason I come here is that there is a balance of opinion and people willing to discuss reasonably the issues of the day. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise or the free funds to bet, but I am continually challenged by the wisdom shown
What RP and others who use abusive, or highly partisan language should realise is that they are the ones I tend to ignore. RPs problem is that Boris is lying and people don't care. He calls them fools and idiots, but for most people the U turn yesterday will have hardly registered - in fact they so loosely follow the news that it doesn't matter but they do notice those who cannot hide their hatred of Boris angrily calling them idiots.
As I said earlier make your point and say why it is important, but I tell my kids off for name calling so I don't expect it here, and I for one am likely to ignore those posts.
No love, my problem is that Boris lies. The general public largely don't do politics, follow the nuances, the breaking news. Its only the Big Stuff that gets through so most of it will go unnoticed.
I call the PB Clown Apologists "fools and idiots" because they are giving succour to this prannock who has brought their party into such disrepute. Power was supposed to be for a purpose - what is His purpose?
To annoy you maybe !!!!!!
Apparently! It isn't doing anything else productive. That even you have said enough is enough shows how bad things have got...
I would replace Boris in a heartbeat, but as today's poll suggest he is taking the public with him at present and as @HYUFD states the party will not move against him while he is a winner with the public
Now about all those articles that stated Boris was totally on the wrong side of the culture war yadda yadda yadda that all the media was pumping out early last week, such and such was trending on twitter, etc etc etc.
Gravity will eventually take effect, but again i think it shows the media and twitter don't see the world the same way as a large proportion of the country.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
It’s all context specific. Scotland is, in my experience, more sweary than England, and England is by some degrees of magnitude more sweary than the USA. In my experience, in England, the c-word is almost exclusively used to describe men, whereas on the rare occasions I’ve heard it used in the US it was in relation to women, which shocked me more - but there’s no rhyme or reason to it. It’s a question of “when in Rome” and all that.
I’ve always assumed the US tendency to apply the c word mainly to women contained a deeply misogynist streak, though that may be down to me experiencing it more in the context of books, films and tv than real life (The Sopranos springs to mind).
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
So you recognise that he is a liar. That he thinks you are stupid enough to believe what he says. And yet attack people who point out that he is a lying twat.
You like being lied to? Because he's on your side...
You are deliberately missing the point. It's the comments that start with eg the lying fat fornicating fucker... that I saw yesterday.. it adds nothing to the conversation and its just venting of the spleen . I understand people don't like Boris. I don't like him either so don't tell me I am a fan because I am not.
Your frustration is borne out of the fact that the Tories have a massive majority and that the opposition is useless and toothless. With people like Angela Rayner in the top echelon, and Labour fighting itself for the soul of the party , the future isn't bright. . Nor is it orange...
Perhaps - just an idea - people don't like Liar because he is a liar. You say "it adds nothing to the conversation" - I disagree because there are still a stack of people out there who still don't understand that Liar is lying to them even when its brazen and in their face as yesterday was.
Park the opposition, they aren't the point here and I don't support them anyway. Tories should not support a liar because such a man is beneath both their party and the office. Other non-lying non-cheating candidates are available and if the party had any principles they would remove him.
You know why they don't? Because "stop calling Liar a liar, it adds nothing to the conversation".
Calling somebody anything is pointless. If Boris lies say what he is lying about and why that is important. As he lies so much you should have plenty of things to talk about and people can draw their own conclusions.
He doesn't want to engage in a constructive debate. He wants a warm, snug self-satisfied glow.
Just like the people before him banging on about Bliar.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In a decade's time if Labour are in office there'll be idiotic Tories here calling the PM of the day a Liar in the same way.
The reason I come here is that there is a balance of opinion and people willing to discuss reasonably the issues of the day. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise or the free funds to bet, but I am continually challenged by the wisdom shown
What RP and others who use abusive, or highly partisan language should realise is that they are the ones I tend to ignore. RPs problem is that Boris is lying and people don't care. He calls them fools and idiots, but for most people the U turn yesterday will have hardly registered - in fact they so loosely follow the news that it doesn't matter but they do notice those who cannot hide their hatred of Boris angrily calling them idiots.
As I said earlier make your point and say why it is important, but I tell my kids off for name calling so I don't expect it here, and I for one am likely to ignore those posts.
No love, my problem is that Boris lies. The general public largely don't do politics, follow the nuances, the breaking news. Its only the Big Stuff that gets through so most of it will go unnoticed.
I call the PB Clown Apologists "fools and idiots" because they are giving succour to this prannock who has brought their party into such disrepute. Power was supposed to be for a purpose - what is His purpose?
"Such disrepute" that he has an eighty seat majority and a mammoth midterm lead?
If that's disrepute, long may it continue.
As for His purpose I'd say that's threefold: Getting Brexit Done, Keeping Labour Out, Levelling Up.
First done, second done (for now) and third will be the most challenging.
If he gets all three done that will be a tremendous legacy leaving him as one of the greatest PMs of all time. If.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
I would just ask would you say it the presence of women
Yes. I'd try not to say it in front of my kids, or indeed anyone else's.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
I guess it’s a question of personal taste. I think the latter two are often used in jest, while the former is only ever an attack. But these things change over time.
Yeah. Even the C word is often used affectionately by a lot of people. Context is everything.
I’m not sure @IanB2 was being affectionate about Boris!
Have we had you perspective on this one Charles old love? Number 10 announces that the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer have been pinged and will be able to continue to work thanks to a new pilot scheme. Number 10 then sends out the Secretary of State for coincidental Tory Donors at Dinner to tell the Sunday politics shows the Good News that the pilot scheme is here so the PM will be able to continue to work from Downing Street.
Consternation and Uproar breaks out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer states "I recognise that even the sense that the rules aren’t the same for everyone is wrong." and as such will be "self isolating as normal and not taking part in the pilot."
And what happens then? The Prime Minister releases a video statement looking like he has just rushed off the set of Worzel Gummidge and says with a straight face that he will be self-isolating at Chequers and that there was never any plan to use the pilot scheme.
Politically, saying that the PM and Chancellor can get around the egregious restrictions causing havoc amongst the general populace is a bad misstep. Hence the uproar.
But the Prime Minister, lying to everyone that there was no pilot, that doesn't bother you? Its ok to be the leader of the party and the country and brazenly attempt to say the thing that just happened didn't happen?
Park the name calling and the inferences, I am using formal titles and restating undisputed facts. Do you think this is ok or not? If it is not, then at which point do you as a multi-generational Tory say that perhaps a Prime Minister who doesn't lie openly would be preferable?
Its about your standards as much as it is his standards. He doesn't have any standards. Do you?
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Nothing. It has entirely detached from its original meaning, and we are now at the stage where it is offensive purely because it's offensive.
Like calling someone fag, gay or retard? Or would you not use that language?
Its offensive because of attitudes towards women, just like calling someone a fag is offensive due to attitudes towards gays etc - thankfully since the 80s we have moved on and most people wouldn't use that language any more.
Demeaning women is considered a lot more appropriate to some people than demeaning other groups.
Though this is currently a very male dominated conversation, I'd be curious what actual women on this site have to say about this and attitudes and abuse towards women. Like @Cyclefree etc? But speaking personally, offline, I know my wife and mother both hate those terms being used as insults - and that's enough for me to have enough respect not to use them.
Wrong, and your counterexamples are so badly off point it is hard to know where to start with them. They refer to people with characteristic x y or z, not to an anatomical part. In fact you've got it back to front, c--t is a strong swear word because of the enormity of blasphemous reference to something ineffably pure. It is in fact a wholly feminist word.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
Nothing. It has entirely detached from its original meaning, and we are now at the stage where it is offensive purely because it's offensive.
Like calling someone fag, gay or retard? Or would you not use that language?
Its offensive because of attitudes towards women, just like calling someone a fag is offensive due to attitudes towards gays etc - thankfully since the 80s we have moved on and most people wouldn't use that language any more.
Demeaning women is considered a lot more appropriate to some people than demeaning other groups.
Though this is currently a very male dominated conversation, I'd be curious what actual women on this site have to say about this and attitudes and abuse towards women. Like @Cyclefree etc? But speaking personally, offline, I know my wife and mother both hate those terms being used as insults - and that's enough for me to have enough respect not to use them.
Wrong, and your counterexamples are so badly off point it is hard to know where to start with them. They refer to people with characteristic x y or z, not to an anatomical part. In fact you've got it back to front, c--t is a strong swear word because of the enormity of blasphemous reference to something ineffably pure. It is in fact a wholly feminist word.
I'm sure everyone here using it is doing so for feminist reasons.
After a dismal month for the Tories, the latest YouGov poll has found Boris Johnson's party has slumped to a 13% lead over Labour (2% up from last time)
Theory. Labour and it’s supporters need to get off Twitter. A quarter of the country use Twitter and only a small subsection of that are engaged with political Twitter. Add in the fact that they use Twitter to publicly air their factional beefs (more so than the Tories who appear to use the marginally more private WhatsApp for such purposes) I recommend a moratorium on Twitter use by Labour MPs forthwith.
Final thought on this stupid decision. The UK saying no is succour to anti-vaxxers. Just as the stupid German newspaper and health ministers trashing AZ back in January undermined the rollout of AZ in Europe and the rest of the world, our decision has global implications. Essentially the UK government is saying that it's safer for kids to get COVID than it is to get vaccinated. That is a seriously dangerous position to hold when we know the side effects from Pfizer are extremely limited and rare and not life threatening or life altering.
This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions from the government I've seen in the pandemic. The next one will be limiting booster shots to 40+ meaning under 40s will become super-spreaders in December and the government will cancel Christmas, again.
I think that there is also an element of being penny wise and pound foolish.
Salami slicing the cost of the vaccination programme would be one of the more idiotic attempts to save money, but that looks like what it is to me.
But it can't be money saving, we've already paid for an additional 60m doses of Pfizer at a cost of ~$1.2bn, the money is already spent.
And Pfizer isn't a vaccine we can easily ship elsewhere and give away for free - it's transport requirements are two difficult.
After a dismal month for the Tories, the latest YouGov poll has found Boris Johnson's party has slumped to a 13% lead over Labour (2% up from last time)
Theory. Labour and it’s supporters need to get off Twitter. A quarter of the country use Twitter and only a small subsection of that are engaged with political Twitter. Add in the fact that they use Twitter to publicly air their factional beefs (more so than the Tories who appear to use the marginally more private WhatsApp for such purposes) I recommend a moratorium on Twitter use by Labour MPs forthwith.
The media do as well. They are so captured by it as what they think the country thinks.
On Good Morning Scotland today speaking about the reckless endangerment of public by our government. Policies heaped in exceptionalism, ideology, false narratives, and pseudoscience. Herd immunity through infection rather than vaccination
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
It’s all context specific. Scotland is, in my experience, more sweary than England, and England is by some degrees of magnitude more sweary than the USA. In my experience, in England, the c-word is almost exclusively used to describe men, whereas on the rare occasions I’ve heard it used in the US it was in relation to women, which shocked me more - but there’s no rhyme or reason to it. It’s a question of “when in Rome” and all that.
I’ve always assumed the US tendency to apply the c word mainly to women contained a deeply misogynist streak, though that may be down to me experiencing it more in the context of books, films and tv than real life (The Sopranos springs to mind).
The word is more taboo in the US than any part of the UK and accordingly, in the US, those that do use it are inevitably misogynists in my experience - in the same way that white people that routinely use the N-word are almost always racists (there are a few exceptions, like Quentin Tarantino, but he’s misguided, Samuel L Jackson has repeatedly called him out on it).
After a dismal month for the Tories, the latest YouGov poll has found Boris Johnson's party has slumped to a 13% lead over Labour (2% up from last time)
Theory. Labour and it’s supporters need to get off Twitter. A quarter of the country use Twitter and only a small subsection of that are engaged with political Twitter. Add in the fact that they use Twitter to publicly air their factional beefs (more so than the Tories who appear to use the marginally more private WhatsApp for such purposes) I recommend a moratorium on Twitter use by Labour MPs forthwith.
The media do as well. They are so captured by it as what they think the country thinks.
The amount of times I've heard things like "and now let's see the public response" followed by a scraping of Tweets.
I suppose that it's theoretically possible, although a major disruption of the Tory grip on the South would require an earthquake approaching the strength of that which wrecked Scottish Labour in 2015. There are only about twenty Tory-held seats in Southern England available for the LDs to attack where they'd need to overturn majorities of less than ten thousand votes. The party doesn't look nearly strong enough to cause that scale of upset at the moment.
Let's take a case study - Woking. Last time, the Conservatives got 49% of the vote, the LDs 30% and Labour 16% with the Greens 3% and UKIP 1% (roughly).
Conservative majority a notch under 10,000 despite a swing of 9.3% to the LDs.
The LDs have never won Woking - in 1997, the Conservative vote fell below 40% (an Independent Conservative polled nearly 8%). Since then, the best LD performance was 38% in 2010 but the Conservative still polled 50% and the majority was just shy of 7,000.
The LDs have never polled above 40% in the constituency - Labour polled 24% in 2017 and lost a third of that last time. Their lowest poll was 8% in 2010.
At the County Council elections in May, the Conservatives won 41% of the vote, the LDs 30%, Labour 11.6% and Independents 10%. The Conservatives won 4 seats, the LDs 2 and the Independents 1.
It looks a tall order for the LDs.
People said the same about places like Glasgow North East in 2013. It fell to the SNP with a swing of 39.3% at the GE two years later.
I think the circumstances of the Scottish Independence Referendum were rather unusual though. Simple government incompetence is unlikely to lead to the same swings. Even the post-Brexit realignment has so far taken two general elections to play out, and may have more left to see at the next GE.
Yes, Better Together was the death knell of the Scottish Labour Party, who had had hegemony for over half a century, but what is happening now is going to be just as big a shock in England:
Brexit Covid Debt Clown
The Lib Dems have a golden opportunity in southern England.
"The number of children registering for home education in the UK rose by 75% in the first eight months of the current school year, according to BBC research."
There is no such thing as "registering for home education" when the education is provided at home by parents.
Interesting point. Is there any regulatory oversight for people that "home school" their children? It seems pretty unhealthy to me.
Apparently there is. A former neighbour, moved about 6 months ago, was home-schooling their two, and apparently not only is there inspection, but, locally anyway, there's a home-schoolers network, where the children themselves can socialise, and parents can share expertise.
Make of that what you will!
@OldKingCole - trust your sister is keeping safe - there's been an outbreak in Alderney - but like Guernsey it's highly vaccinated:
Thanks. Sister has been thoroughly vaccinated and, AFAIK, not going many places. A daughter is with her now, but is unlikely, I think, to have visited any of the places listed.
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We know six things. All politics is relative not absolute. The Tory vote remains rock solid at about 43%. The centre left vote is split and the centre right vote isn't. Labour is not setting out a clear alternative agenda and has not resolved its Brexit dilemma though there is a big market for a clear Labour policy on it. There is little hard evidence of a centre left breakthrough in the south outside London. Byelections don't tell you much.
55% of voters think the government was wrong to lift all restrictions today in England including 77% of Labour voters, 70% of LDs and 74% of Remainers.
Tories and Leave voters are split however, 44% of Tories think the government was wrong to lift all restrictions today, 43% think they were right and 43% of Leave voters think they were right to lift all restrictions with 43% thinking they were wrong to do so https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/lzpfmyen4d/TheTimes_FreedomDay_210716.pdf
On Good Morning Scotland today speaking about the reckless endangerment of public by our government. Policies heaped in exceptionalism, ideology, false narratives, and pseudoscience. Herd immunity through infection rather than vaccination
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
It’s all context specific. Scotland is, in my experience, more sweary than England, and England is by some degrees of magnitude more sweary than the USA. In my experience, in England, the c-word is almost exclusively used to describe men, whereas on the rare occasions I’ve heard it used in the US it was in relation to women, which shocked me more - but there’s no rhyme or reason to it. It’s a question of “when in Rome” and all that.
I’ve always assumed the US tendency to apply the c word mainly to women contained a deeply misogynist streak, though that may be down to me experiencing it more in the context of books, films and tv than real life (The Sopranos springs to mind).
No it is used almost exclusively towards women in the US and has misogynistic undertones for sure. If you're ever there and want to silence the room I would suggest you use it. Perhaps in England it has different nuances than in Scotland where I grew up, but it is used in a variety of ways in Scotland ranging from affectionate to condemnatory and I don't think has any misogynistic undertones. I do find that at times it is the only word that will do, eg in a motoring context.
What advantages have we actually gained? Are we any more free or open than elsewhere in Europe? It doesn't seem like it
Yes we are. We're the most open nation in Europe.
I don't think that's true - I think Denmark is more open than the UK.
Debateable as it stands, but 100% definitely not the case as of midnight.
In Denmark you can't enter a gym, or attend any organised indoor sport events without a Corona Passport. In the UK you've been able to attend a gym without a Covid passport.
In Denmark you need a Corona Passport to enter restraurants, cafes and bars. You don't in the UK. In Denmark all restaraunts, cafes and bars much close no later than 2am.
In Denmark for massages, haircuts and tattoos etc you must present a Covid Passport. You don't in the UK.
In Denmark you can't enter a museum, amusement park, cinema, venues, zoos, stadiums or other sport venues without a corona passport. You can in the UK.
In Denmark all discos and nightclubs are closed, they will be open tonight in the UK.
In Denmark its illegal to have indoor events and activities of more than 250 people, all such restrictions are being abolished in the UK.
In Denmark a face mask is legally required on public transport. Its not in the UK from tomorrow.
Taking of which, Sweden now seems to be the only EU member not having a 3rd wave, (cases staying at 200-250 a day)
Perhaps, that's just luck and it will start to rise next week, or maybe that's because lots of young people including under 18s had it asymptomatically in the earlier wayvs and therefor have a level of antibody/T Cell immunity, which in conjunction with the Vaccines in the Old and middle-aged.
Anybody else with 17 months hindsight wish we had taken the Swedish approach?
In order to understand “the Swedish approach” you have to understand a bit about Swedish culture. England could never have adopted the Swedish approach, because England (and most of RoW) lacks lots of unusual characteristics of Swedish society.
The first and most important thing that you must learn about Sweden is the heavy bias towards the young. Swedes have a disregard for the upper middle aged and elderly that most other cultures would find utterly shocking. The elderly are *not* regarded as a reservoir of wisdom, automatically deserving respect, even veneration, as in most world cultures. It is not that Swedes dislike older people, it is just that we don’t see them as a group deserving special status. This underlies *everything* about Swedish society, and is probably the reason most foreigners find it difficult to get a grasp on us. They realise we are different, perhaps even odd, but they can’t quite put their finger on it.
Allied to this phenomenon, children and young adults are very highly valued and resources are heavily invested in their welfare and wellbeing.
Further, “the family”, while important, is not the be all and end all of societal structure. And levels of faith are very low by international standards (Scotland and Sweden were the first two countries to consistently measure atheists/agnostics to be in a majority).
Then we have other odd Swedish characteristics, like a strong distrust of melodrama, suspicion of eccentrics and contrarians, a near-unanimous trust in teamwork as a problem solving technique, and remarkable gender equality (feminism is not a characteristic of the left in Sweden; women, and most men, throughout all social groups and all income levels are fundamentalist feminists in a way astonishing to most other cultures). Huge trust in technology, very low population density, small households in low density housing, many single households, very high minimum housing standards, low levels of corruption, a willingness to pay high taxes, high trust in politicians and public bodies, a sane media, etc etc etc
Combine this with an extraordinarily decentralised civil service and political structure, and you might begin to understand our Covid19 response.
We didn’t panic. We acted as a team. We protected the long-term interests of our children and young adults.
It’s not rocket science.
For people interested in the topic, I can recommend this article, which includes a fascinating diagram of world cultures: look how Sweden is way up to the top right (very low resolution and hard to read: better resolution images are available):
What advantages have we actually gained? Are we any more free or open than elsewhere in Europe? It doesn't seem like it
Yes we are. We're the most open nation in Europe.
I don't think that's true - I think Denmark is more open than the UK.
Debateable as it stands, but 100% definitely not the case as of midnight.
In Denmark you can't enter a gym, or attend any organised indoor sport events without a Corona Passport. In the UK you've been able to attend a gym without a Covid passport.
In Denmark you need a Corona Passport to enter restraurants, cafes and bars. You don't in the UK. In Denmark all restaraunts, cafes and bars much close no later than 2am.
In Denmark for massages, haircuts and tattoos etc you must present a Covid Passport. You don't in the UK.
In Denmark you can't enter a museum, amusement park, cinema, venues, zoos, stadiums or other sport venues without a corona passport. You can in the UK.
In Denmark all discos and nightclubs are closed, they will be open tonight in the UK.
In Denmark its illegal to have indoor events and activities of more than 250 people, all such restrictions are being abolished in the UK.
In Denmark a face mask is legally required on public transport. Its not in the UK from tomorrow.
Taking of which, Sweden now seems to be the only EU member not having a 3rd wave, (cases staying at 200-250 a day)
Perhaps, that's just luck and it will start to rise next week, or maybe that's because lots of young people including under 18s had it asymptomatically in the earlier wayvs and therefor have a level of antibody/T Cell immunity, which in conjunction with the Vaccines in the Old and middle-aged.
Anybody else with 17 months hindsight wish we had taken the Swedish approach?
In order to understand “the Swedish approach” you have to understand a bit about Swedish culture. England could never have adopted the Swedish approach, because England (and most of RoW) lacks lots of unusual characteristics of Swedish society.
The first and most important thing that you must learn about Sweden is the heavy bias towards the young. Swedes have a disregard for the upper middle aged and elderly that most other cultures would find utterly shocking. The elderly are *not* regarded as a reservoir of wisdom, automatically deserving respect, even veneration, as in most world cultures. It is not that Swedes dislike older people, it is just that we don’t see them as a group deserving special status. This underlies *everything* about Swedish society, and is probably the reason most foreigners find it difficult to get a grasp on us. They realise we are different, perhaps even odd, but they can’t quite put their finger on it.
Allied to this phenomenon, children and young adults are very highly valued and resources are heavily invested in their welfare and wellbeing.
Further, “the family”, while important, is not the be all and end all of societal structure. And levels of faith are very low by international standards (Scotland and Sweden were the first two countries to consistently measure atheists/agnostics to be in a majority).
Then we have other odd Swedish characteristics, like a strong distrust of melodrama, suspicion of eccentrics and contrarians, a near-unanimous trust in teamwork as a problem solving technique, and remarkable gender equality (feminism is not a characteristic of the left in Sweden; women, and most men, throughout all social groups and all income levels are fundamentalist feminists in a way astonishing to most other cultures). Huge trust in technology, very low population density, small households in low density housing, many single households, very high minimum housing standards, low levels of corruption, a willingness to pay high taxes, high trust in politicians and public bodies, a sane media, etc etc etc
Combine this with an extraordinarily decentralised civil service and political structure, and you might begin to understand our Covid19 response.
We didn’t panic. We acted as a team. We protected the long-term interests of our children and young adults.
It’s not rocket science.
For people interested in the topic, I can recommend this article, which includes a fascinating diagram of world cultures: look how Sweden is way up to the top right (very low resolution and hard to read: better resolution images are available):
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We're all anoraks, we fallow every single little thing that any of them do. That isn't normal - the non-political which is most people don't even hear about such things.
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
Comments
According to @Charles.
Do you sometimes feel like throwing your radio out of the window?
Or do you just shrug? The Prime Minister's cronies are lying again.
Even the interviewer can't be bothered. It's just exhausting
We're being governed by a bunch of chisellers. Does it matter?
This is the wrong decision for millions of families across the country and for millions of kids who are now consigned to another year of idiotic bubbles and isolation. The clamour to bring them back in September will be huge as soon as the first 13 year old goes to hospital and the parents scream that this was avoidable with isolation bubbles.
Wowsers.
Good choice for a day off - not sure. As the song goes, "feeling hot, hot, hot" (in a meteorological sense, as distinct from any other).
"Freedom Day" - I think we've had about five of these and no one's quite got it right yet.
I shall venture shortly to see if the great unwashed (it's an expression not based on empirical or olfactory observation) of East Ham have "set down their masks" in the cause of freedom.
Personal view - I'm certainly going to continue to wear one on the Underground (it's part of the Conditions of Carriage). South Western Railways are taking a different line saying "In line with government guidance, we have removed advice about social distancing and expect passengers, out of respect for others, to wear face coverings in crowded places". I infer from that if I'm sitting on my own in a carriage I don't need to wear a mask.
Shops and supermarkets - if they ask me to wear a mask, I will, if not, I'll take a view based on how busy the shop is.
Night life: I'm more lamb bhuna than lambada so I don't care about nightclubs. As for pubs, I like the "new way" of table service and ordering off the app and it seems to suit a lot of people from what I've seen.
I wouldn't say I'm not concerned - I don't want to catch Covid, not because I'm worried I'll die but it's an unpleasant thing I could do without. I'm sure once the unvaccinated have been "gone through" we'll see, as we did early last summer, a pretty rapid drop off in cases.
We await the autumn booster....
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
Tories 44%
Labour 31%
LDs 8%
Greens 6%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1417047147296473090?s=20
I've been in a similar situation - where I have an option to be pretty pissed off if I wanted to but no actual option to do anything to change anyone's behaviour. I have dealt with it by rationalising that a) come August 19th or whenever the date is this behaviour will be perfectly legal and b) had the the rules changed earlier we would be there anyway.
Unfortunately, if I am reading this right, this isn't a situation where you have any options to do the right thing, only options over how other people's actions make you feel. And for your own mental health, if you can, it's always easiest to avoid the outrage option, despite the dopamine hit it gives you.
Easier said than done, I know!
No doubt anyone who doesn’t add their pronouns will be labelled bigots or worse and eventually be forced to.
If people want to use pronouns then fill your boots but if people don’t just live and let live
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19451082.mark-smith-great-indy-silence-snps-people-problem/?ref=twtrec
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
What RP and others who use abusive, or highly partisan language should realise is that they are the ones I tend to ignore. RPs problem is that Boris is lying and people don't care. He calls them fools and idiots, but for most people the U turn yesterday will have hardly registered - in fact they so loosely follow the news that it doesn't matter but they do notice those who cannot hide their hatred of Boris angrily calling them idiots.
As I said earlier make your point and say why it is important, but I tell my kids off for name calling so I don't expect it here, and I for one am likely to ignore those posts.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic decisions from the government I've seen in the pandemic. The next one will be limiting booster shots to 40+ meaning under 40s will become super-spreaders in December and the government will cancel Christmas, again.
Maybe at walk-in clinics this is more common.
I keep saying but i am befuddled that Tories haven't taken a hit, even if you don't buy into the taking the knee row, there are a load of other things that i would have thought would have hit the Tories numbers, Hancock scandal, worried about rise in covid, pingademic meaning you are having to isolate again, or your kid off schools for the 4th time in 6 weeks due to sitting in the same room as a plague carrier.
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
You're right that I don't really have the option to change anything. My partner's daughter certainly won't listen to me, and my partner is quite desperate to stay on good terms with her daughter. It just seems so selfish, especially given that she'd only have to stay a week and was planning to stay for another couple of days in any case (albeit not cooped up in the house/garden).
But it's true that her actions probably won't make much difference in the grand scheme of things, given the general prevalence of the virus. So perhaps I should just swallow my annoyance and save rocking the boat. I can't help being disappointed in her though, and, to a lesser extent, my partner for making my son lie by omission and for facilitating her daughter's actions (especially given that she works for the NHS, though not in a front line role).
I just think the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. Why use it when there are alternatives available.
Its offensive because of attitudes towards women, just like calling someone a fag is offensive due to attitudes towards gays etc - thankfully since the 80s we have moved on and most people wouldn't use that language any more.
Demeaning women is considered a lot more appropriate to some people than demeaning other groups.
Though this is currently a very male dominated conversation, I'd be curious what actual women on this site have to say about this and attitudes and abuse towards women. Like @Cyclefree etc? But speaking personally, offline, I know my wife and mother both hate those terms being used as insults - and that's enough for me to have enough respect not to use them.
Salami slicing the cost of the vaccination programme would be one of the more idiotic attempts to save money, but that looks like what it is to me.
I think there should be a drop in cases caused by schools finishing for the Summer. Whether this is then cancelled out by nightclubs etc. is another matter!
Our vaccine programme had a great start but since around March it has completely gone to shit with a complete lack of foresight on what we would need for Q2 to be done and dusted before the summer. It's also around the time that Kate Bingham resigned and the Whitehall bods got their hands on the VTF.
I call the PB Clown Apologists "fools and idiots" because they are giving succour to this prannock who has brought their party into such disrepute. Power was supposed to be for a purpose - what is His purpose?
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
Perhaps we need to have run all the big festivals this summer and just made them under 18 only!
But dad, i don't want to see Radiohead live...it will do you good son. When i were a lad, we all had to listen to them.
In front of my gran, never, my mother, no problem, my partner, same (the former two are dead so somewhat academic).
Bollocks. 🙄
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1417060091984060416?s=20
Things have changed as society has become more secular, but using words like God or Jesus for cursing also used to be highly taboo, and that certainly wasn't because they were considered impure.
People have different tastes of course, and I try not to say anything offensive on here anyway, but I really don't see either twat or the C word as being offensive to women, and it is certainly not my intention in using them.
Gravity will eventually take effect, but again i think it shows the media and twitter don't see the world the same way as a large proportion of the country.
If that's disrepute, long may it continue.
As for His purpose I'd say that's threefold: Getting Brexit Done, Keeping Labour Out, Levelling Up.
First done, second done (for now) and third will be the most challenging.
If he gets all three done that will be a tremendous legacy leaving him as one of the greatest PMs of all time. If.
Consternation and Uproar breaks out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer states "I recognise that even the sense that the rules aren’t the same for everyone is wrong." and as such will be "self isolating as normal and not taking part in the pilot."
And what happens then? The Prime Minister releases a video statement looking like he has just rushed off the set of Worzel Gummidge and says with a straight face that he will be self-isolating at Chequers and that there was never any plan to use the pilot scheme.
Politically, saying that the PM and Chancellor can get around the egregious restrictions causing havoc amongst the general populace is a bad misstep. Hence the uproar.
But the Prime Minister, lying to everyone that there was no pilot, that doesn't bother you? Its ok to be the leader of the party and the country and brazenly attempt to say the thing that just happened didn't happen?
Park the name calling and the inferences, I am using formal titles and restating undisputed facts. Do you think this is ok or not? If it is not, then at which point do you as a multi-generational Tory say that perhaps a Prime Minister who doesn't lie openly would be preferable?
Its about your standards as much as it is his standards. He doesn't have any standards. Do you?
Why are you trying to deceive readers?
Twitter is not the public!
Brexit
Covid
Debt
Clown
The Lib Dems have a golden opportunity in southern England.
But thanks again.
All politics is relative not absolute.
The Tory vote remains rock solid at about 43%.
The centre left vote is split and the centre right vote isn't.
Labour is not setting out a clear alternative agenda and has not resolved its Brexit dilemma though there is a big market for a clear Labour policy on it.
There is little hard evidence of a centre left breakthrough in the south outside London.
Byelections don't tell you much.
Tories and Leave voters are split however, 44% of Tories think the government was wrong to lift all restrictions today, 43% think they were right and 43% of Leave voters think they were right to lift all restrictions with 43% thinking they were wrong to do so
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/lzpfmyen4d/TheTimes_FreedomDay_210716.pdf