"California parole commissioners recommended on Friday that Sirhan B. Sirhan should be freed on parole after spending more than 50 years in prison for assassinating Robert F. Kennedy during his campaign for president."
NYTimes
Why did it make your jaw drop?
That the guy is still around. Still alive. Still doing his term. Seems lifetimes ago.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
Yes, but Bush Snr and Carter had dramatically higher approval ratings and we're re-elected. If you chart approval rating at 220 days against vote share at four years, you'll see basically zero correlation.
(And this is, of course, irrelevant as Biden will not be the Democratic candidate in three years time.)
Nixon was on 62%, he got 61% in 1972. Obama was on 54%, not far off the 51% he got in 2012.
Ike and LBJ were also re elected by landslides in 1956 and 1964 and had approval ratings over 70% at this stage.
Bush's 57% was a bit above the 50.7% he got in 2004 but he was still re elected.
Certainly to be sure of re election you do not want to under 50% at this stage. The only President under 50% at this stage who managed to be re elected was Bill Clinton and Biden is no Bill Clinton. Plus Clinton still got only 49% in 1996 and was helped by Perot splitting the opposition vote.
Harris has an even lower approval rating than Biden does
So, when you're doing correlations, you need to use all the datapoints, not just the ones that reinforce your existing views.
Here's a fun one: let's chart approval rating at 220 days vs change in vote share after four years.
In other words, if you have a good approval rating, will your vote share increase?
"California parole commissioners recommended on Friday that Sirhan B. Sirhan should be freed on parole after spending more than 50 years in prison for assassinating Robert F. Kennedy during his campaign for president."
NYTimes
Why did it make your jaw drop?
That the guy is still around. Still alive. Still doing his term. Seems lifetimes ago.
He was only in his 20s though… but Kennedy died before I was born if that makes you feel better…
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
I suspect Newsom survives too: the Republicans have been unlucky that their only two candidates to have gotten any press at all are Caitlyn Janner and Larry Elder. If there had been a Larry Hogan or Chris Sununu (or a Reagan or a Schwarzenegger), then I suspect it could have looked very different.
Why do you think the democract-supporting journalists would only write about the most controversial republican candidates*
* apart from controversy selling papers, of course
To be fair, Larry Elder has been leading in the polls, so it's a bit self reinforcing. Also, Caitlyn Janner is (sadly) news.
I’m in a deep blue part of OC
I’ve seen 2 recall posters & 1 elder poster. Plus in the red zone north of me saw a large recall/elder combo opposite the turn to the 73.
Nothing else visible
In the last week in Brentwood, I've seen a rash of "stop the recall" signs go up.
It'll be very interesting to see what turnout will be like.
One reason I've suspected that Trudeau might underperform in Canada is the Theresa May trap of calling a snap election with no obvious justification beyond partisan advantage. Just possible this is kicking in.
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Actually it only took one President, Biden.
It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.
Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"
Get a poll from 2 years ago prior to the election and see what the figures are.
62% of Republicans, even higher, say the withdrawal would have been wrong if Al Qaeda and jihadi terrorists return so the divide is ideological now not just personal.
Finally neoconservatism and interventionism is making a comeback in the GOP base
A leading question *and* constant horrendous media *and* a Democratic president's decision to oppose and still only 62%. That's not the neocons getting the GOP back.
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Oldham 68%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Liverpool 60%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
If you ever feel useless, and that everything you do is for nought.
Remember that it took twenty years, four US Presidents, trillions of American dollars, and the deaths of many Afghanis, Brits and Americans to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Actually it only took one President, Biden.
It was George W Bush who removed them, Biden with a little earlier help from Trump let them back in.
Interesting article from Justin Webb on how Biden was isolationist even under Obama.
"Richard Holbrooke, the late US diplomat, noted in his diary Biden's response in 2010 to a suggestion that America had an obligation to maintain its presence in Afghanistan: 'F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that.'"
Get a poll from 2 years ago prior to the election and see what the figures are.
62% of Republicans, even higher, say the withdrawal would have been wrong if Al Qaeda and jihadi terrorists return so the divide is ideological now not just personal.
Finally neoconservatism and interventionism is making a comeback in the GOP base
A leading question *and* constant horrendous media *and* a Democratic president's decision to oppose and still only 62%. That's not the neocons getting the GOP back.
Oh absolutely it is given a few months ago 2/3 of Republicans backed the withdrawal
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
One reason I've suspected that Trudeau might underperform in Canada is the Theresa May trap of calling a snap election with no obvious justification beyond partisan advantage. Just possible this is kicking in.
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
Trudeau just seems a bit shit and he's supposed to be on my side?
He promised to abolish FPTP and then changed his mind as soon as he won? What a twat?
Why? FPTP at least gives his Liberals a chance of a majority as they had in 2015, under PR there would have been zero chance of a Liberal majority and under PR the Conservatives would have won most seats at the last election already as they won most votes
Trudeau just seems a bit shit and he's supposed to be on my side?
He promised to abolish FPTP and then changed his mind as soon as he won? What a twat?
He's a reinforcer of the status quo. The kindly face of the establishment order. That's the LPC traditional role. Campaign from the Left. Govern from the Right. Plus ca change as they say underneath the English.
One reason I've suspected that Trudeau might underperform in Canada is the Theresa May trap of calling a snap election with no obvious justification beyond partisan advantage. Just possible this is kicking in.
41% for the two right-of-centre parties is quite a high share for Canada. I don't think anyone expected the People's Party to be doing as well as 6% at this stage.
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
One reason I've suspected that Trudeau might underperform in Canada is the Theresa May trap of calling a snap election with no obvious justification beyond partisan advantage. Just possible this is kicking in.
41% for the two right-of-centre parties is quite a high share in Canada. I don't think anyone expected the People's Party to be doing as well as 6% at this stage.
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
It's a condition of being a member of college.
I was registered with my college GP until I had a kid… 15 years after leaving Oxford…
One reason I've suspected that Trudeau might underperform in Canada is the Theresa May trap of calling a snap election with no obvious justification beyond partisan advantage. Just possible this is kicking in.
41% for the two right-of-centre parties is quite a high share in Canada. I don't think anyone expected the People's Party to be doing as well as 6% at this stage.
It's 75% for the centre right my friend.
The Liberals are centrist not centre right, the NDP are left
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
It's a condition of being a member of college.
Why? And what other conditions are placed on you?
You have to stand on your head and say Wibble on Saturdays in Lent.
Biden approval positive in a series of polls now (except Rasmussen), and Democrats extending their lead. While I'm pleased for him, I think this is basically the "rally round the leader in tough times" thing, which is also helping the Tories in Britain.
The recall challenge in CA seems to be fading, too. -15 now.
That’s one poll in CA Nick. Could be right but so could the one suggesting the recall up 11pc
Yes, but that was taken 3 weeks ago, and there have been three Keep polls since with increasing margins?
But I don't profess to understand why anyone of any party likes the recall system as it operates there. It seems entirely mad, especially the fact that if it succeeds you get an almost random person taking over, who in turn will almost certainly be subject to recall. Do Californians have infinite money to blow on this sort of thing?
To be fair the recall system doesn't operate like that there though.
This is only the second recall election for Governor in the history of California. The first was the very well deserved recall of Gray Davis and he wasn't replaced then by anyone random, the Governator won just a shade under 50% of the vote and actually won more votes than the votes against recalling Davis despite how many candidates were then on the ballot.
So if its a stupid mess this time, it will be an unprecedented stupid mess.
True. On the other hand, it's the 54th recall initiative, and the 6th attempt to recall Newsom. Every governor for the last 50 years has had them. But you need 12% of voters to support it, and it's a big state, so they tend to fall short and do nothing but maintain the atmosphere at fever pitch all the time.
The government has announced plans to ban single-use plastic cutlery, plates and polystyrene cups in England as part of what it calls a "war on plastic".
The government has announced plans to ban single-use plastic cutlery, plates and polystyrene cups in England as part of what it calls a "war on plastic".
Anything about fishing nets and so on which are the main contributor?
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
It's a condition of being a member of college.
Why? And what other conditions are placed on you?
Well, you have to reside a certain number of nights per year within a certain distance of Cambridge. And I'm sure there are other requirements.
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
It's a condition of being a member of college.
Why? And what other conditions are placed on you?
You mustn't speak to women, on pain of Cambridge University ... well they won't hand you much in the way of punishment but they will lock the women up in their prison. Oh wait...they've got rid of that practice now.
You've still got to live within 3 miles of the clocktower of Great St Mary's, you can't drive a car in the town unless you have a special licence from the university as well as a standard driving licence, and you aren't allowed to have political meetings in the town without permission etc.
Trudeau just seems a bit shit and he's supposed to be on my side?
He promised to abolish FPTP and then changed his mind as soon as he won? What a twat?
Why? FPTP at least gives his Liberals a chance of a majority as they had in 2015, under PR there would have been zero chance of a Liberal majority and under PR the Conservatives would have won most seats at the last election already as they won most votes
However, with PR, it is almost impossible to conjure a coherent, lasting government without the LPC. For the foreseeable future.
The government has announced plans to ban single-use plastic cutlery, plates and polystyrene cups in England as part of what it calls a "war on plastic".
Anything about fishing nets and so on which are the main contributor?
Indeed. Visit any rocky beach in western Scotland and there's always a tideline of fishing debris, no matter how far it is from 'civilisation'. Not sure how this can be solved. Biodegradable nets only? Ban plastic crates?
Trudeau just seems a bit shit and he's supposed to be on my side?
He promised to abolish FPTP and then changed his mind as soon as he won? What a twat?
Why? FPTP at least gives his Liberals a chance of a majority as they had in 2015, under PR there would have been zero chance of a Liberal majority and under PR the Conservatives would have won most seats at the last election already as they won most votes
However, with PR, it is almost impossible to conjure a coherent, lasting government without the LPC. For the foreseeable future.
Only if the Conservatives do a deal with the Liberals which would be unlikely, otherwise the Liberals and NDP would tend to have a majority combined which also is frequently the case under FPTP anyway.
@Cyclefree : when you say 'biologically men', are you including post-op women who have transitioned from being male?
No. If they have had the operation then I consider them to be women and have no issue with them being in women-only spaces. It is men who still have all their male genitalia but who claim to feel like a women I have an issue with.
First, because womanhood is a reality not a feeling.
Second, because if you have male genitalia you are - potentially - a threat to women. Most decent men understand this. That is why they understand the need for female only spaces. I have great difficulty understanding the mentality of men who demand - in some cases very aggressively - the right to go into female only spaces. If they really thought they were women they would empathise with women and understand the concerns women have. But they don't, they dismiss them.
It is not genuine transwomen who are a risk to women. It is sexual predators who will use this loophole as a way of getting access to women.
And this is also the answer to your claim that this is just like the arguments used against gays decades ago (they're a risk to kiddies etc). It was not gay men who were a risk but there were paedophiles who claimed to be gay in order to get access to children. See the Islington children's homes scandal.
The Prison Service has already said that they accept that male sexual predators in prison will claim to be transwomen in order to get access to women. If you create a bloody great loophole then people will use it. 80% of transwomen do not have the operation. So they are men in all physical respects. How are women supposed to tell the difference between them and any other man? They can't. Why should they take the risk? Why? Why should male feelings be prioritised over women's feelings and concerns?
And one final point on the trans rights are just like gay rights argument. They are not. Gay people were - rightly - arguing for the same rights as everyone else: to marry, adopt, age of consent etc. What rights does everyone have which are denied to trans people? None. The demand is for something which no-one else has and which will curtail or extinguish existing rights for women. And I say no to that.
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
It's a condition of being a member of college.
Why? And what other conditions are placed on you?
Well, you have to reside a certain number of nights per year within a certain distance of Cambridge. And I'm sure there are other requirements.
I thought that was only to qualify for an MA (Cantab)?
The government has announced plans to ban single-use plastic cutlery, plates and polystyrene cups in England as part of what it calls a "war on plastic".
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
All the people complaining about the use of the word "pets" need to sent a copy of the dictionary with the word "priorities" highlighted.
This whole story is a most effective psychopath detector.
My biggest criticism of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' is that it does not extend to not knowing which species you will be. If it did, then animal rights would have greater prominence in left thinking.
You pick on that I wonder why when I would have pointed out the difference between abc1 people and the rest of us. Still I guess labour being the party of ABC1's these days you wouldn't want to do that
I put a Venn Diagram together and that was the overlap that stood out. If you are part of all four categories, pound to a penny you don't donate to PETA.
No one with a brain donates to peta they are arseholes
"Conservatives surging with male voters: Nanos data
With the Liberals and Conservatives running neck and neck during the second week of the federal election campaign, new data from Nanos Research shows the Liberals are enjoying higher support among female voters while the Conservatives are by far the most popular party for male voters.
In the latest nightly tracking data for CTV News and The Globe and Mail that was released Friday, the Liberals had the most support among Canadian females, with 37.1 per cent versus 29.6 per cent among males, while the Conservatives had 26.5 per cent support among females versus a whopping 40.7 per cent among males."
Biden did a revenge air strike. Maybe a bit too soon to reset the media narrative though, he'll need to do a bigger one once things have settled down a bit.
OT just received a phishing email purporting to be from Paypal and warning of suspicious activity on my credit card. Be careful out there.
I had that too but I don't use paypal anymore. Its like the calls I get from 'BT' that tell me I have had unusual activity on my computer and they can fix it being a BT customer, odd since I ditched BT too. Hateful dissembling Company.
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
Breaking: BBC News is screening interviews with relatives of dead Afghans alleging that a number of the dead were shot by US troops in the panic after the explosion, rather than by the suicide bomber.
CBS saying death toll "at least 170".
BBC and SKY saying only 95.
BBC saying 170
Interviewing relatives coming out of the morgue saying their relatives have bullet wounds and no signs of injury from explosion.
SKY just said 95.
NyTimes : "exceeds" 170
From the interviews on the BBC I fear the picture that is going to emerge is that, after the sudden explosion from what turned out to be a single suicide bomber, soldiers (some mix of US and Turkish) started firing wildly at stuff, thinking they were under attack. One eye witness suggested the firing came from watchtowers (or maybe gun posts on high buildings? - he just said “towers”) above the crowd.
The BBC had already contacted the US authorities for comment, but they had refused to offer any. Expect this story to grow as journalists get stuck into it - hampered by an inability to research what happened on the ground.
OT just received a phishing email purporting to be from Paypal and warning of suspicious activity on my credit card. Be careful out there.
I had that too but I don't use paypal anymore. Its like the calls I get from 'BT' that tell me I have had unusual activity on my computer and they can fix it being a BT customer, odd since I ditched BT too. Hateful dissembling Company.
Off-topic: what is it supposed to mean when the government say that everyone aged 18+ has been offered vaccination?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"? Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else? Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
At Cambridge, you are required to be registered with a local GP. Cambridge GPs therefore live high on the hog, as students aren't there half the year. And don't forget, the academic year finished there three months ago.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
What do you mean required? Aren't you an adult with agency?
It's a condition of being a member of college.
Why? And what other conditions are placed on you?
A number of compulsory dinners, for a start.
I had a quick peek at my old college’s current regulations. Mostly they are a list of things that are prohibited, from fairy lights to window posters to animals to bringing your own furniture to playing music in rooms after 11pm.
Things that students are currently required to do are:
- sit the university’s exams for their registered course - attend your college supervisions - wear gowns at formal dinners - reside within the university precincts for a minimum number of nights per term - register with a Cambridge NHS GP - sign out for any nights spent away from Cambridge during term, and obtain permission for any stays away of more than one night - report to your tutor on coming up for term, and obtain an exeat form before going down - hand back your room keys when not in residence - accompany all guests within the colleague after 10pm - contact the night Porter for entry to the colleague after midnight when the gate is locked - register any non-college visitor who stays in your room after 2 am (overnight guests limited to 15 nights per term, or 20 if another member of college) - pay your college bills - get permission for meetings, parties, private dinners in college - give your name when asked by any official of the university - get permission for any car or motorbike kept within Cambridge - report whenever you are ill confined to your room
Most of these I remember from my days, although we didn’t have to limit or need to register ‘overnight guests’ in rooms…elf and safety gone mad!
You're about 100 miles S of me, so that temperature difference would be about right. Actually, next weekend looks a bit better than this, here.
It’s the sea that makes the difference
Weather systems are more likely to come up the English Channel than down the North Sea, although on occasion they do; once in my lifetime disastrously.
It was 4° here overnight. I had the moth trap out but pretty poor results.
There was an announcement yesterday that this summer had been warmer than usual. I have to say that in my corner of the country that has been absolute rubbish. A few rare warm days but overall notably colder than the last few years and one of the coldest overall I can remember for a very long time. Spending so much time observing and recording nature as I do, particularly invertebrates, it has been very notable how much they have suffered in the cooler weather this summer.
@Cyclefree : when you say 'biologically men', are you including post-op women who have transitioned from being male?
No. If they have had the operation then I consider them to be women and have no issue with them being in women-only spaces. It is men who still have all their male genitalia but who claim to feel like a women I have an issue with.
First, because womanhood is a reality not a feeling.
Second, because if you have male genitalia you are - potentially - a threat to women. Most decent men understand this. That is why they understand the need for female only spaces. I have great difficulty understanding the mentality of men who demand - in some cases very aggressively - the right to go into female only spaces. If they really thought they were women they would empathise with women and understand the concerns women have. But they don't, they dismiss them.
It is not genuine transwomen who are a risk to women. It is sexual predators who will use this loophole as a way of getting access to women.
And this is also the answer to your claim that this is just like the arguments used against gays decades ago (they're a risk to kiddies etc). It was not gay men who were a risk but there were paedophiles who claimed to be gay in order to get access to children. See the Islington children's homes scandal.
The Prison Service has already said that they accept that male sexual predators in prison will claim to be transwomen in order to get access to women. If you create a bloody great loophole then people will use it. 80% of transwomen do not have the operation. So they are men in all physical respects. How are women supposed to tell the difference between them and any other man? They can't. Why should they take the risk? Why? Why should male feelings be prioritised over women's feelings and concerns?
And one final point on the trans rights are just like gay rights argument. They are not. Gay people were - rightly - arguing for the same rights as everyone else: to marry, adopt, age of consent etc. What rights does everyone have which are denied to trans people? None. The demand is for something which no-one else has and which will curtail or extinguish existing rights for women. And I say no to that.
A bit late on this thread, but I disagree with much of that.
"It is men who still have all their male genitalia but who claim to feel like a women I have an issue with."
Then you have an issue with male-to-female trans people then, as part of the precursors to having an operation is to live as a woman (socially transitioned) for a certain amount of time (one year, I think). Due to the sparse availability of operations, it may well be much longer. Where are they supposed to go whilst living as a woman? The male toilets?
"Second, because if you have male genitalia you are - potentially - a threat to women. Most decent men understand this."
So you make a rather broad claim, and that say that if anyone disagrees they aren't decent. Well, I don't disagree, but also think the point is nasty because of it's breadth. Women can rape women as well: sadly, it does happen, and therefore women are - potentially - a threat to women. Most decent women understand this. (see what I did there?) And yes, it's an incredibly remote risk. But so is the risk that you are so concerned with.
"it was not gay men who were a risk but there were paedophiles who claimed to be gay in order to get access to children. "
If a man sexually abuses a young boy, then he is a paedophile. It's also quite probable that he is gay or bisexual, is it not, because of the nature of the act? And the point is exactly that: the fear of such abuse by a few should not be used to restrict the rights of the group as a whole.
"What rights does everyone have which are denied to trans people? None."
The right to be the person they believe themselves to be. Which you want to deny because you are evidently afraid of them.
I also think you need to be very careful about using phrases such as 'biologically men', as the term can be very loaded. Is someone who has transitioned (m to f or f to m) 'biologically' the gender they were born with, given that genetically they haven't altered? You may use that term in one way: other use it in a different manner.
Trans rights are an immensely complex area, and there are a wide range of opinions. It all becomes rather muddy.
For instance, I don't think trans women should be able to compete professionally in female sports. There is no automatic 'right' to be able to compete professionally (otherwise I'd like my right to compete in the Olympics), and it is a case of trying to balance unfairness to various people. In that case, I go down against them competing. I'm also very concerned about treatments being given to under 18s, and certainly under 16s.
But having known a few transsexuals, pre- and post-op, as colleagues and friends, I don't recognise any reason that a remote fear you feel should be used against them - especially when that fear is directed to a tiny subset.
Despite the above, we're possibly not too far apart on this issue: but it's an immensely thorny topic that needs a great dal of sensitivity.
Your first point is the most important one: how to deal with men in the process of transitioning who are having to live as women prior to the necessary operations.
I think the answer is to have neutral toilets available, in addition to single sex ones. That will take time but that is what I would encourage. I'd be interested to know how people who have transitioned from men to female have dealt with this aspect. What I don't think is the answer is to abolish single sex loos for women.
Re the risk of rape. The risk of rape and sexual harassment of women by men is far far higher than the risk of women being raped by women. It is far higher than you realise. Every single women I know, of all ages, including myself, has suffered sexual harassment up to and including, in very many cases, rape. Claiming that this is a remote risk is simply untenable.
On the biological male point, even after full transition, a trans woman remains biologically male in the sense that her sex gametes are and always will be male. There is no - and cannot be - any genetic change. It is important to understand this because a person who has transitioned will still be at risk of sex-based illnesses ie those more likely to happen to their biological sense. For all other purposes, I think it is fine to consider her a woman.
But a man who claims to be a woman but makes no effort to transition remains a male. The fact they may wear lipstick or a dress does not make them a woman. Gender dysphoria is a real condition but it needs to be diagnosed by properly trained medical professionals. It is not something that someone can declare just like that. AIUI in many cases, particularly with regards to children, what may appear to be this in fact turns out to be something else or not dysphoria at all but a child coming to terms with the fact that they are gay.
The right to live as you want: well trans people do have this right. It is not denied them in any way. There is no legal bar to transitioning. What there is and, IMO, always should be is a requirement that there should be a medical diagnosis before someone can transition, given the implications for the person concerned, their family, women and society as a whole.
Legally, the Equality Act protects gender reassignment and sex - 2 of the 9 protected characteristics. So there is equality. But there are also competing rights and there is no reason why men's demands - and they are demands not rights - should be favoured, especially when the balance of risk points the other way.
The demand for self-ID and the abolition of sex-based rights and female only spaces is not a demand for equality. It is a demand for privilege and for something which adversely affects women's interests and identity.
Your first point is the most important one: how to deal with men in the process of transitioning who are having to live as women prior to the necessary operations.
I think the answer is to have neutral toilets available, in addition to single sex ones. That will take time but that is what I would encourage. I'd be interested to know how people who have transitioned from men to female have dealt with this aspect. What I don't think is the answer is to abolish single sex loos for women.
Re the risk of rape. The risk of rape and sexual harassment of women by men is far far higher than the risk of women being raped by women. It is far higher than you realise. Every single women I know, of all ages, including myself, has suffered sexual harassment up to and including, in very many cases, rape. Claiming that this is a remote risk is simply untenable.
On the biological male point, even after full transition, a trans woman remains biologically male in the sense that her sex gametes are and always will be male. There is no - and cannot be - any genetic change. It is important to understand this because a person who has transitioned will still be at risk of sex-based illnesses ie those more likely to happen to their biological sense. For all other purposes, I think it is fine to consider her a woman.
But a man who claims to be a woman but makes no effort to transition remains a male. The fact they may wear lipstick or a dress does not make them a woman. Gender dysphoria is a real condition but it needs to be diagnosed by properly trained medical professionals. It is not something that someone can declare just like that. AIUI in many cases, particularly with regards to children, what may appear to be this in fact turns out to be something else or not dysphoria at all but a child coming to terms with the fact that they are gay.
The right to live as you want: well trans people do have this right. It is not denied them in any way. There is no legal bar to transitioning. What there is and, IMO, always should be is a requirement that there should be a medical diagnosis before someone can transition, given the implications for the person concerned, their family, women and society as a whole.
Legally, the Equality Act protects gender reassignment and sex - 2 of the 9 protected characteristics. So there is equality. But there are also competing rights and there is no reason why men's demands - and they are demands not rights - should be favoured, especially when the balance of risk points the other way.
The demand for self-ID and the abolition of sex-based rights and female only spaces is not a demand for equality. It is a demand for privilege and for something which adversely affects women's interests and identity.
It is not simply the fear of sexual abuse which worries me. It is also the view that being a woman is simply a feeling, an idea in a man's head and not an objective reality.
What trans people need above all are resources being devoted to the diagnosis of and treatment for gender dysphoria. There is very little help and support and the waiting lists for what help is available are very long. That causes great distress. But the answer to this is not self-ID nor is it to curtail or abolish the rights of women or take steps which harm them. It is to increase those resources significantly. That is something I strongly support.
I will leave you with this quote: ""Men propagating the lie that “woman” is an identity that can be slipped into easier than a satin kimono, without any risk to the actual group it affects, should be indulged about as much as a fox in a hen house that says it’s vegetarian."
It is not your position but it is one which is increasingly being pushed by trans advocates. It is wrong and does great harm - to women and to trans people themselves.
It is not simply the fear of sexual abuse which worries me. It is also the view that being a woman is simply a feeling, an idea in a man's head and not an objective reality.
What trans people need above all are resources being devoted to the diagnosis of and treatment for gender dysphoria. There is very little help and support and the waiting lists for what help is available are very long. That causes great distress. But the answer to this is not self-ID nor is it to curtail or abolish the rights of women or take steps which harm them. It is to increase those resources significantly. That is something I strongly support.
I will leave you with this quote: ""Men propagating the lie that “woman” is an identity that can be slipped into easier than a satin kimono, without any risk to the actual group it affects, should be indulged about as much as a fox in a hen house that says it’s vegetarian."
It is not your position but it is one which is increasingly being pushed by trans advocates. It is wrong and does great harm - to women and to trans people themselves.
Have a good day.
"I think the answer is to have neutral toilets available, in addition to single sex ones."
IMV that is absolutely unworkable. How many places - from petrol stations to supermarkets - have the space and ability for 'neutral' toilets. Getting access to disabled toilets is bad enough. It also treats them as second-class citizens. They are supposed to spend at least a year living as a woman. Having to use neutral toilets is not that.
I am also well aware of the scale of abuse (of children, women and men) in this country - in fact, I've often commented on the high rates on here, comments that have often been objected to by other posters. My view: all of us will know someone who has been abused; unless we're not very social, the odds are we'll know someone who has been abused in the last year. Man are also abused in various ways, at about half the rate of women. True, it's half, but every episode of abuse is a personal story that should not be discounted.
So I'm well aware of the horrific scale of abuse, and that *anyone* can be the victim of abuse.
I just don't think that your fears are justified in this case, particularly compared to the potential harms of your suggested remedy.
As for female/woman identity: Mrs J is a woman. She has been told many times that she is not a 'real' woman, because she chooses not to dress in a particularly feminine way a lot of the time, and because she chooses to work rather than look after our child full-time. Yet she is a real woman, identifies as such, and is a great mother. Likewise, I've faced some issues (almost all from women) that I'm somehow 'odd' for chucking in work to look after a child. It is, apparently, 'abnormal'. Yet I'm a man (believe me, I've checked), and identify as such. I've just chosen a slightly different (though not worse) role from the 'traditional' male one.
In short, I think I agree that no man can define a woman's identity. I'm unsure that a woman has a right to define any other woman's identity, either.
From previous conversations, I believe you are very keen on rights for women, e.g. wrt employment. My own view is that breaking down the traditional roles of 'man' and 'woman'; 'mother' and 'father' is the best way of reducing many of the inequalities that bedevil both women and men.
In addition, I don't see gender (and especially gender roles) as being binary, but a spectrum, albeit heavily weighted to the ends. In the words of The Beautiful South "And on the masculine side of this whole wide world there is no 101% man". I'd extend that to women as well.
But to get back to the point: one of our dearest friends was a female-to-male transsexual. He faced lots of issues in his life, including abuse at an early age. The bravery he exhibited in dealing with the issues he faced was amazing, until they eventually consumed him. My best schoolfriend is now a woman. I knew these people, and know others. I've seen some of the issues they face, and whilst I am not trans, and have no desire to be, and perhaps have no right to speak out for trans rights, I do think society needs to exhibit a little more understanding.
And I hope you have a good day too. Also, that your daughter's business is doing well through all the current strife.
Comments
Here's a fun one: let's chart approval rating at 220 days vs change in vote share after four years.
In other words, if you have a good approval rating, will your vote share increase?
Dying in the name of freedom
https://youtu.be/pd8P12BXebo
Abba are releasing 5 new songs. Was everyone else aware of this?
What do they mean by "everyone" and "offered"?
Does "everyone" mean all residents, everyone who has an NHS number, everyone who is registered with a GP, or something else?
Does "offered" mean contacted personally, addressed impersonally in a publicity campaign, or one of these if a person is in one part of the population and the other if they're not?
I'm trying to get a handle on the demographics of the unvaccinated. Many (anecdotally) seem prone to believe that groups on which they're not especially keen are over-represented among the unvaccinated. Sometimes such beliefs may be accurate, but sometimes they derive in large part from prejudice.
How does being unvaccinated vary with level of formal education?
I plugged a few areas into the BBC website and came up with the following figures for the double-vaccinated: Western Isles 90%, South Norfolk 83%, North Norfolk 83%, Cardiff 81%, Highland 81%, Basingstoke 80%, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 79%, County Durham 77%, Thanet 77%, Belfast 77%, Derry City and Strabane 77%, Tunbridge Wells 76%, Windsor and Maidenhead 76%, Edinburgh 72%, Glasgow 72%, Oldham 68%, Leeds 66%, Reading 61%, Southampton 61%, Liverpool 60%, Cambridge 54%, Lambeth 54%, Oxford 53%, Hackney and the City of London 52%, Kensington and Chelsea 50%.
Their low percentage is therefore a consequence of students not being in Cambridge and probably getting jabbed at mummy's place.
https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-1947-ELXN44-Nightly-Tracking-Report-2021-08-26-1.pdf
It has been rumoured however the reason Trudeau called the election is he is heading for a divorce with his wife and he wanted the election out of the way beforehand
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2021/08/blind-item-9_25.html
Aren't you an adult with agency?
He promised to abolish FPTP and then changed his mind as soon as he won? What a twat?
Bit of a surprise. Can't imagine the money has run out!
The marsh wiggles are a strange lot.
Bertrand would be on 16% as the centre right candidate with Melenchon on 11% and Hidalgo on 6% for the socialists
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/elections/presidentielle/presidentielle-2022-marine-le-pen-et-emmanuel-macron-toujours-en-tete-au-premier-tour-selon-un-sondage_4748721.html
You've still got to live within 3 miles of the clocktower of Great St Mary's, you can't drive a car in the town unless you have a special licence from the university as well as a standard driving licence, and you aren't allowed to have political meetings in the town without permission etc.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/presidentielle-2022-la-droite-ne-parvient-pas-a-perturber-le-duel-annonce-entre-macron-et-le-pen-20210524
First, because womanhood is a reality not a feeling.
Second, because if you have male genitalia you are - potentially - a threat to women. Most decent men understand this. That is why they understand the need for female only spaces. I have great difficulty understanding the mentality of men who demand - in some cases very aggressively - the right to go into female only spaces. If they really thought they were women they would empathise with women and understand the concerns women have. But they don't, they dismiss them.
It is not genuine transwomen who are a risk to women. It is sexual predators who will use this loophole as a way of getting access to women.
And this is also the answer to your claim that this is just like the arguments used against gays decades ago (they're a risk to kiddies etc). It was not gay men who were a risk but there were paedophiles who claimed to be gay in order to get access to children. See the Islington children's homes scandal.
The Prison Service has already said that they accept that male sexual predators in prison will claim to be transwomen in order to get access to women. If you create a bloody great loophole then people will use it. 80% of transwomen do not have the operation. So they are men in all physical respects. How are women supposed to tell the difference between them and any other man? They can't. Why should they take the risk? Why? Why should male feelings be prioritised over women's feelings and concerns?
And one final point on the trans rights are just like gay rights argument. They are not. Gay people were - rightly - arguing for the same rights as everyone else: to marry, adopt, age of consent etc. What rights does everyone have which are denied to trans people? None. The demand is for something which no-one else has and which will curtail or extinguish existing rights for women. And I say no to that.
With the Liberals and Conservatives running neck and neck during the second week of the federal election campaign, new data from Nanos Research shows the Liberals are enjoying higher support among female voters while the Conservatives are by far the most popular party for male voters.
In the latest nightly tracking data for CTV News and The Globe and Mail that was released Friday, the Liberals had the most support among Canadian females, with 37.1 per cent versus 29.6 per cent among males, while the Conservatives had 26.5 per cent support among females versus a whopping 40.7 per cent among males."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/conservatives-surging-with-male-voters-nanos-data-1.5563675
Mixed bag btl for Sunak.
The BBC had already contacted the US authorities for comment, but they had refused to offer any. Expect this story to grow as journalists get stuck into it - hampered by an inability to research what happened on the ground.
Things that students are currently required to do are:
- sit the university’s exams for their registered course
- attend your college supervisions
- wear gowns at formal dinners
- reside within the university precincts for a minimum number of nights per term
- register with a Cambridge NHS GP
- sign out for any nights spent away from Cambridge during term, and obtain permission for any stays away of more than one night
- report to your tutor on coming up for term, and obtain an exeat form before going down
- hand back your room keys when not in residence
- accompany all guests within the colleague after 10pm
- contact the night Porter for entry to the colleague after midnight when the gate is locked
- register any non-college visitor who stays in your room after 2 am (overnight guests limited to 15 nights per term, or 20 if another member of college)
- pay your college bills
- get permission for meetings, parties, private dinners in college
- give your name when asked by any official of the university
- get permission for any car or motorbike kept within Cambridge
- report whenever you are ill confined to your room
Most of these I remember from my days, although we didn’t have to limit or need to register ‘overnight guests’ in rooms…elf and safety gone mad!
From Friday, by the sound of the forecast.
It was 4° here overnight. I had the moth trap out but pretty poor results.
There was an announcement yesterday that this summer had been warmer than usual. I have to say that in my corner of the country that has been absolute rubbish. A few rare warm days but overall notably colder than the last few years and one of the coldest overall I can remember for a very long time. Spending so much time observing and recording nature as I do, particularly invertebrates, it has been very notable how much they have suffered in the cooler weather this summer.
NEW THREAD
"It is men who still have all their male genitalia but who claim to feel like a women I have an issue with."
Then you have an issue with male-to-female trans people then, as part of the precursors to having an operation is to live as a woman (socially transitioned) for a certain amount of time (one year, I think). Due to the sparse availability of operations, it may well be much longer. Where are they supposed to go whilst living as a woman? The male toilets?
"Second, because if you have male genitalia you are - potentially - a threat to women. Most decent men understand this."
So you make a rather broad claim, and that say that if anyone disagrees they aren't decent. Well, I don't disagree, but also think the point is nasty because of it's breadth. Women can rape women as well: sadly, it does happen, and therefore women are - potentially - a threat to women. Most decent women understand this. (see what I did there?) And yes, it's an incredibly remote risk. But so is the risk that you are so concerned with.
"it was not gay men who were a risk but there were paedophiles who claimed to be gay in order to get access to children. "
If a man sexually abuses a young boy, then he is a paedophile. It's also quite probable that he is gay or bisexual, is it not, because of the nature of the act? And the point is exactly that: the fear of such abuse by a few should not be used to restrict the rights of the group as a whole.
"What rights does everyone have which are denied to trans people? None."
The right to be the person they believe themselves to be. Which you want to deny because you are evidently afraid of them.
I also think you need to be very careful about using phrases such as 'biologically men', as the term can be very loaded. Is someone who has transitioned (m to f or f to m) 'biologically' the gender they were born with, given that genetically they haven't altered? You may use that term in one way: other use it in a different manner.
Trans rights are an immensely complex area, and there are a wide range of opinions. It all becomes rather muddy.
For instance, I don't think trans women should be able to compete professionally in female sports. There is no automatic 'right' to be able to compete professionally (otherwise I'd like my right to compete in the Olympics), and it is a case of trying to balance unfairness to various people. In that case, I go down against them competing. I'm also very concerned about treatments being given to under 18s, and certainly under 16s.
But having known a few transsexuals, pre- and post-op, as colleagues and friends, I don't recognise any reason that a remote fear you feel should be used against them - especially when that fear is directed to a tiny subset.
Despite the above, we're possibly not too far apart on this issue: but it's an immensely thorny topic that needs a great dal of sensitivity.
Your first point is the most important one: how to deal with men in the process of transitioning who are having to live as women prior to the necessary operations.
I think the answer is to have neutral toilets available, in addition to single sex ones. That will take time but that is what I would encourage. I'd be interested to know how people who have transitioned from men to female have dealt with this aspect. What I don't think is the answer is to abolish single sex loos for women.
Re the risk of rape. The risk of rape and sexual harassment of women by men is far far higher than the risk of women being raped by women. It is far higher than you realise. Every single women I know, of all ages, including myself, has suffered sexual harassment up to and including, in very many cases, rape. Claiming that this is a remote risk is simply untenable.
On the biological male point, even after full transition, a trans woman remains biologically male in the sense that her sex gametes are and always will be male. There is no - and cannot be - any genetic change. It is important to understand this because a person who has transitioned will still be at risk of sex-based illnesses ie those more likely to happen to their biological sense. For all other purposes, I think it is fine to consider her a woman.
But a man who claims to be a woman but makes no effort to transition remains a male. The fact they may wear lipstick or a dress does not make them a woman. Gender dysphoria is a real condition but it needs to be diagnosed by properly trained medical professionals. It is not something that someone can declare just like that. AIUI in many cases, particularly with regards to children, what may appear to be this in fact turns out to be something else or not dysphoria at all but a child coming to terms with the fact that they are gay.
The right to live as you want: well trans people do have this right. It is not denied them in any way. There is no legal bar to transitioning. What there is and, IMO, always should be is a requirement that there should be a medical diagnosis before someone can transition, given the implications for the person concerned, their family, women and society as a whole.
Legally, the Equality Act protects gender reassignment and sex - 2 of the 9 protected characteristics. So there is equality. But there are also competing rights and there is no reason why men's demands - and they are demands not rights - should be favoured, especially when the balance of risk points the other way.
The demand for self-ID and the abolition of sex-based rights and female only spaces is not a demand for equality. It is a demand for privilege and for something which adversely affects women's interests and identity.
What trans people need above all are resources being devoted to the diagnosis of and treatment for gender dysphoria. There is very little help and support and the waiting lists for what help is available are very long. That causes great distress. But the answer to this is not self-ID nor is it to curtail or abolish the rights of women or take steps which harm them. It is to increase those resources significantly. That is something I strongly support.
I will leave you with this quote: ""Men propagating the lie that “woman” is an identity that can be slipped into easier than a satin kimono, without any risk to the actual group it affects, should be indulged about as much as a fox in a hen house that says it’s vegetarian."
It is not your position but it is one which is increasingly being pushed by trans advocates. It is wrong and does great harm - to women and to trans people themselves.
Have a good day.
IMV that is absolutely unworkable. How many places - from petrol stations to supermarkets - have the space and ability for 'neutral' toilets. Getting access to disabled toilets is bad enough. It also treats them as second-class citizens. They are supposed to spend at least a year living as a woman. Having to use neutral toilets is not that.
I am also well aware of the scale of abuse (of children, women and men) in this country - in fact, I've often commented on the high rates on here, comments that have often been objected to by other posters. My view: all of us will know someone who has been abused; unless we're not very social, the odds are we'll know someone who has been abused in the last year. Man are also abused in various ways, at about half the rate of women. True, it's half, but every episode of abuse is a personal story that should not be discounted.
So I'm well aware of the horrific scale of abuse, and that *anyone* can be the victim of abuse.
I just don't think that your fears are justified in this case, particularly compared to the potential harms of your suggested remedy.
As for female/woman identity: Mrs J is a woman. She has been told many times that she is not a 'real' woman, because she chooses not to dress in a particularly feminine way a lot of the time, and because she chooses to work rather than look after our child full-time. Yet she is a real woman, identifies as such, and is a great mother. Likewise, I've faced some issues (almost all from women) that I'm somehow 'odd' for chucking in work to look after a child. It is, apparently, 'abnormal'. Yet I'm a man (believe me, I've checked), and identify as such. I've just chosen a slightly different (though not worse) role from the 'traditional' male one.
In short, I think I agree that no man can define a woman's identity. I'm unsure that a woman has a right to define any other woman's identity, either.
From previous conversations, I believe you are very keen on rights for women, e.g. wrt employment. My own view is that breaking down the traditional roles of 'man' and 'woman'; 'mother' and 'father' is the best way of reducing many of the inequalities that bedevil both women and men.
In addition, I don't see gender (and especially gender roles) as being binary, but a spectrum, albeit heavily weighted to the ends. In the words of The Beautiful South "And on the masculine side of this whole wide world there is no 101% man". I'd extend that to women as well.
But to get back to the point: one of our dearest friends was a female-to-male transsexual. He faced lots of issues in his life, including abuse at an early age. The bravery he exhibited in dealing with the issues he faced was amazing, until they eventually consumed him. My best schoolfriend is now a woman. I knew these people, and know others. I've seen some of the issues they face, and whilst I am not trans, and have no desire to be, and perhaps have no right to speak out for trans rights, I do think society needs to exhibit a little more understanding.
And I hope you have a good day too. Also, that your daughter's business is doing well through all the current strife.