The last confirmed rise in cases by sample date week on week is 27/9 being higher than 20/9, which has been the case for a few days, though the falls are settling as slight. Still think we're merely at a col with cases (and hospitalisations) before continuing upwards, and have at least 2-3 weeks of rises from university returns and the more gradual build up primary school cases in particular. But the longer we go, the weaker the coming case surge is likely to be, and the more October half term will gain us.
I think the 7 day average case rates will saw tooth quite a bit yet, as different factors come into play (Xmas parties, returns to work, the move indoors), but those mini surges will be on a decaying, downward overall trend between October and Christmas, and though the New Year saw tooth will trend back up weakly, it will not be too long before dipping down again.
I've said I would have gone for a national two week October half term which I'd have announced in August and I would have had more of a plan B to bring to bear on restrictions if needed. I've not changed my view on that, such a modest advanced notice restriction would have better ensured a good position in the run up to Christmas even if we might yet get away without it and it now looks like plan B would have sat untouched.
If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?
The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.
The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:
"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."
I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Fear not. I bet Hitler couldn't knit for toffee.
On which point I will confess something shameful to you. For a long time, and because of that, you talking about knitting a lot, I thought you were a woman.
Talking of knitting they do a "Stitch and Bitch "session for women at my local pub which makes me chuckle
My first knitting book was called "Stitch and Bitch". It introduced me to the concept of people being "knit-worthy".
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
In any group of 38,000 people, unfortunately some of them will die within the next 28 days. Many simply fall into that category.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?
I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.
Get those boosters people.
Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
A lot of Boris-hatred, like yours and kinabalu's, is driven by chippy class-hatred. YOU see a posho who looks down on you, and that makes YOU seethe
Plenty of people don't give much of a fuck about class any more
Not at all. Don't give a shit about that. If that looks like anti-public school prejudice then that's because there was a type of person that seemed to come from that background, but nowhere else. (E.g. Cameron, same background, I don't feel the same about him at all). It's his evident laziness and dishonesty I object to. But genuinely puzzled why others don't see it through the showmanship.
I think a lot of the people who get most irritated by Johnson are actually upper middle class professionals. Though not Etonians necessarily.
If there is a class element to the dislike it's the intra-upper-middle exclusion felt by the hard working grammar school or independent day school kid who has come face to face with the Bullingdon types in their first term at university. The ones who look straight through you as if you don't exist.
Like TMexPM, you mean? Or Major? Or the Blessed Margaret herself?
Cameron is the interesting one, I agree; also Eton and Oxford, but he doesn't set off my hard working sixth form college prejudices either. Perhaps because Dave gave the impression that, despite his advantages he could and would work hard when necessary. Rishi might be the same; I don't rate his political judgement, but I don't think he's a terrible person.
"Cameron is the interesting one, I agree; also Eton and Oxford, but he doesn't set off my hard working sixth form college prejudices either. Perhaps because Dave gave the impression that, despite his advantages he could and would work hard when necessary"
Or perhaps because he was Head of the Remain campaign!
I suspect you will find those with similar views which held Cameron in higher esteem than Johnson were formed 5-10 years before the referendum. Perhaps made stronger because of their roles in Brexit, but (mostly) not formed because of it.
I liked Cameron as PM but the recent lobbying revelations have caused me to move him down a whole drawer. He's not in the bottom drawer with Trump and ilk nor even the 2nd bottom one (where Farage and Johnson live) but he's now in the middle one. Farage, btw, used to be in the middle one (since despite his politics I found him engaging and sincere) but his craven Trumpery in recent times led to him being demoted to the drawer he's in now - the 2nd bottom one with Johnson. Most of the current cabinet are in there too.
Shout out for Nick Clegg there too. He went from top drawer to bottom but one just for joining Facebook. To think I voted for him in 2010, and felt sorry for him after not voting for him in 2015!
Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?
Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.
It is important to them.
Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.
It's odd.
You do seem to run into these people. A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.
I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.
I'm not making this up.
I don’t believe you are making it up.
Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?
I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com
I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.
He is strangely silent.
I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.
I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.
But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.
Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.
It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.
CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
The last confirmed rise in cases by sample date week on week is 27/9 being higher than 20/9, which has been the case for a few days, though the falls are settling as slight. Still think we're merely at a col with cases (and hospitalisations) before continuing upwards, and have at least 2-3 weeks of rises from university returns and the more gradual build up primary school cases in particular. But the longer we go, the weaker the coming case surge is likely to be, and the more October half term will gain us.
I think the 7 day average case rates will saw tooth quite a bit yet, as different factors come into play (Xmas parties, returns to work, the move indoors), but those mini surges will be on a decaying, downward overall trend between October and Christmas, and though the New Year saw tooth will trend back up weakly, it will not be too long before dipping down again.
I've said I would have gone for a national two week October half term which I'd have announced in August and I would have had more of a plan B to bring to bear on restrictions if needed. I've not changed my view on that, such a modest advanced notice restriction would have better ensured a good position in the run up to Christmas even if we might yet get away without it and it now looks like plan B would have sat untouched.
The good news is that 15% a week growth (if that's what it is) is a doubling time of 5 weeks- plenty of time to intervene. It's not the doubling in 3 days we had last spring.
The bad news is that 1 doubling still takes us to 80k cases and over 250 deaths.
We could have got the numbers a lot lower over the summer by being a bit more patient.
By intervene you mean lockdown?
I just can't hack another winter of lockdown. Nor can many people I know. We've discussed it. Just wouldn't do it
Then what else?
We do nothing, except vaccinate more people.
Witty said at the recent presser that people's reticence in going back completely to normal was largely what had kept hospitalisations at a presentable level, with average daily contacts at about half the pre pandemic level. Despite those comments, we've since had the governing party and the PM himself put pressure on people to "return to work". I can say from first hand experience this has fed through firmly into corporate communications. Same for most people I know.
Well before the need for anything resembling a lockdown, the return to "WFH if you can" would be the easiest bullet in the world to fire (unless you are a supremely wealthy chancellor with untold indirect commercial property interests). And it's quite a surprise they haven't already gone down this route until they've boosted groups 1-9. As we have it from the CMO that it is the thing most likely to impact average daily contacts.
The concern will be that in its haste to put the pandemic firmly behind them, the government has missed an open goal that would have prevented any further restrictions this winter.
If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?
The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.
The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:
"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."
I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Year round short wearers are deemed suspicious somehow, I know a few of that type.
Yes, I see a fair number of men of a certain age who wear shorts whatever the weather. Usually saggy cargo shorts with full side pockets. It isn't a flattering look.
For me, apart from requirements of simple decency and cleanliness, what really should matter is the the state of their body. But it is true that, given the time/trouble/money one can do wonders of camouflage: take for instance Trump.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
We know why they won't explain it.
We do?! Why is it?
Sincere question
My question to you is also sincere.
Please answer it.
What question?
See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.
If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?
The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.
The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:
"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."
I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Year round short wearers are deemed suspicious somehow, I know a few of that type.
Yes, I see a fair number of men of a certain age who wear shorts whatever the weather. Usually saggy cargo shorts with full side pockets. It isn't a flattering look.
For me, apart from requirements of simple decency and cleanliness, what really should matter is the the state of their body. But it is true that, given the time/trouble/money one can do wonders of camouflage: take for instance Trump.
@ Foxy. It's just because we're past caring what people think of how we look.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?
I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.
Get those boosters people.
Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
In any group of 38,000 people, unfortunately some of them will die within the next 28 days. Many simply fall into that category.
This isn't a massive number
" In 2019, there were 496,370 total deaths in England" (ONS)
56,286,961 2019 population of England (Google)
So in a 28 day period there'd be 38,077 deaths in the population.
Taking a random 38,000 population
(38000 x 38077)/56286961 = 26 deaths.
Given how many cases are amongst schoolkids, it should be lower than that I'd have thought too. If the case numbers were really high in 80+ I might agree, but they're not.
If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?
The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.
The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:
"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."
I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Fear not. I bet Hitler couldn't knit for toffee.
On which point I will confess something shameful to you. For a long time, and because of that, you talking about knitting a lot, I thought you were a woman.
Not being the sort of guy who shares pictures of his erect member with strangers on the internet it does create some doubt as to my gender and, since I have no reason to be offended, you should have no reason to feel ashamed.
As another male knitter, there is an odd prejudice out there. I have won prizes for my knitting at local shows, and design my own garments. My wife is a recipient of many fine jumpers.
In one of my books is a lighthouse keeper who knitted his own ganseys all his life (a gansey is a traditional knitted jumper worn by fisherman around the UK and in the Netherlands). Historically, before framework knitting, men would be knitters in a profession.
Unfortunate friend of mine used to live in Tooting and commute to central London. He used to knit on the Tube. Got a lot of funny looks.
Reading through the thread a myriad of comments about Boris - many bemused about his appeal, some irritated that he's a toff, several detecting change in the public mood [ though not yet reflected in the polls apparently]. Seems overall as if the conference has done its job. Opponents no nearer understanding either him or his appeal - and flailing around with the usual snide remarks, belittling his supporters, waiting for the polls to turn, maybe hoping just a little for catatrophes ahead to derail the government.
All in all a good result. Let's see what the future will bring..
Another ringing endorsement of today’s big leadership speech. Not. 😆
Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?
Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.
It is important to them.
Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.
It's odd.
You do seem to run into these people. A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.
I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.
I'm not making this up.
I don’t believe you are making it up.
Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?
I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com
I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.
He is strangely silent.
I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.
I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.
But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.
Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.
It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.
CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
Might be easier for Labour to find a leader who can tell jokes.
If you can't beat em join em, you mean? Maybe it's come to that. I sense John McDonnell would have the nation smiling but the centrist dads have got hold of the party now and they'd shy away from him, I think.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?
I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.
Get those boosters people.
Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.
With 90% of the over 16s single- and 82% double-vaxxed in the UK, I think it's almost time from a society-level public health perspective to welcome high rates of infection - at that level of vaccination, and higher levels for the vulnerable, it will confer levels of protection to those who are unwilling to be vaccinated for whatever reason at very low morbidity and mortality rates.
An encouraging ruling for Boris and disappointing for Sturgeon as it suggests if Sturgeon went to the SC and asked to overturn the UK government's refusal to allow an indyref2, the court would side with Boris and the UK government much as the highest court in Spain declared Catalonia's attempted independence referendum to not be constitutional
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
We know why they won't explain it.
We do?! Why is it?
Sincere question
My question to you is also sincere.
Please answer it.
What question?
See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.
A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this
"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature- whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule, obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic. Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."
Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.
My sister who I live with has tested positive, she says it feels like a bad cold and her energy levels feel low. She is working from home lying on bed watch TV with her laptop tray (she is a textile designer). Hopefully the vacc will do it's job for her and that's all she gets.
Awaiting my PCR result, if it's negative I will have to do a lateral flow before work each day for the next 10 days. Feeling ok for the most part, bit of a headache though that could be anything.
Get your boosters everyone, mine was due today after 7 months since my last dose. Hopefully I am negative and I can get it done next week.
If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?
The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.
The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:
"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."
I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Year round short wearers are deemed suspicious somehow, I know a few of that type.
Yes, I see a fair number of men of a certain age who wear shorts whatever the weather. Usually saggy cargo shorts with full side pockets. It isn't a flattering look.
I'd never wear shorts in a professional capacity - you just feel better when smartly dressed. But I do tend to live in shorts in my free time.
Half the fun of working from home during the pandemic, was wearing a shirt with shorts on video calls!
Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?
Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.
It is important to them.
Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.
It's odd.
You do seem to run into these people. A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.
I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.
I'm not making this up.
I don’t believe you are making it up.
Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?
I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com
I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.
He is strangely silent.
I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.
I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.
But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.
Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.
It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.
CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
I bet more young women fancy me than you.
So fuck off, old boy.
Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?
Please both stop this before it gets too embarrassing - I take it you both have no idea what the other looks like
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?
I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.
Get those boosters people.
Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.
With 90% of the over 16s single- and 82% double-vaxxed in the UK, I think it's almost time from a society-level public health perspective to welcome high rates of infection - at that level of vaccination, and higher levels for the vulnerable, it will confer levels of protection to those who are unwilling to be vaccinated for whatever reason at very low morbidity and mortality rates.
So far as I can tell Covid is blimming risky still if you're very old even if you're vaccinated. But these are NOT people who would be dieing anyway, certainly not in the next 28 days.
Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?
Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.
It is important to them.
Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.
It's odd.
You do seem to run into these people. A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.
I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.
I'm not making this up.
I don’t believe you are making it up.
Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?
I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com
I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.
He is strangely silent.
I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.
I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.
But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.
Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.
It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.
CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
I bet more young women fancy me than you.
So fuck off, old boy.
Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?
Please both stop this before it gets too embarrassing - I take it you both have no idea what the other looks like
That’s true. It’s possible Casino Royale looks like a young Sean Connery.
An encouraging ruling for Boris and disappointing for Sturgeon as it suggests if Sturgeon went to the SC and asked to overturn the UK government's refusal to allow an indyref2, the court would side with Boris and the UK government much as the highest court in Spain declared Catalonia's attempted independence referendum to not be constitutional
Concerning "incorporat[ion of] aspects of international treaties into Scots law". Relevance doubtful; but not as irrelevant as your insistence that Spanish constitutional law is relevant. .
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?
I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.
Get those boosters people.
Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.
With 90% of the over 16s single- and 82% double-vaxxed in the UK, I think it's almost time from a society-level public health perspective to welcome high rates of infection - at that level of vaccination, and higher levels for the vulnerable, it will confer levels of protection to those who are unwilling to be vaccinated for whatever reason at very low morbidity and mortality rates.
This seems to me to be the government's plan. Thinking being you'll have a better wall against breakthrough infection through acquired immunity plus vaccine, than just vaccine alone (immune recognition of 28 proteins vs just 1?).
However this judgement was made pre-delta and before Israel's warning on waning immunity (at least with a 3-week Pfizer programme). Whether the Uk government still looks so clever as the weather turns we shall have to wait and see. But it looks increasingly like internationally, "fully vaccinated" will come to mean three doses not two. But on the basis that this government will do the right thing only after exploring every alternative, no crowded commuter trains / meeting rooms for me until the booster is in my arm in a month or so's time.
A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this
"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature- whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule, obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic. Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."
Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.
Alternatively, that might be a rather indirect description of Gary Klein's definition of true expertise - the ability to intuit conclusions instantly and subconsciously in extremely complex situations where their is no time for conscious rationalization and, in any case, it would offer no answers; an intuition that comes from many years of working the issue first hand and pushing one's knowledge of it deliberately to the extent that our brain is able subconsciously to make recognition-primed decisions. Think firefighters and naval aviators; or good meteorologists.
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
A lot of Boris-hatred, like yours and kinabalu's, is driven by chippy class-hatred. YOU see a posho who looks down on you, and that makes YOU seethe
Plenty of people don't give much of a fuck about class any more
Not at all. Don't give a shit about that. If that looks like anti-public school prejudice then that's because there was a type of person that seemed to come from that background, but nowhere else. (E.g. Cameron, same background, I don't feel the same about him at all). It's his evident laziness and dishonesty I object to. But genuinely puzzled why others don't see it through the showmanship.
I think a lot of the people who get most irritated by Johnson are actually upper middle class professionals. Though not Etonians necessarily.
If there is a class element to the dislike it's the intra-upper-middle exclusion felt by the hard working grammar school or independent day school kid who has come face to face with the Bullingdon types in their first term at university. The ones who look straight through you as if you don't exist.
Like TMexPM, you mean? Or Major? Or the Blessed Margaret herself?
Cameron is the interesting one, I agree; also Eton and Oxford, but he doesn't set off my hard working sixth form college prejudices either. Perhaps because Dave gave the impression that, despite his advantages he could and would work hard when necessary. Rishi might be the same; I don't rate his political judgement, but I don't think he's a terrible person.
"Cameron is the interesting one, I agree; also Eton and Oxford, but he doesn't set off my hard working sixth form college prejudices either. Perhaps because Dave gave the impression that, despite his advantages he could and would work hard when necessary"
Or perhaps because he was Head of the Remain campaign!
I suspect you will find those with similar views which held Cameron in higher esteem than Johnson were formed 5-10 years before the referendum. Perhaps made stronger because of their roles in Brexit, but (mostly) not formed because of it.
I liked Cameron as PM but the recent lobbying revelations have caused me to move him down a whole drawer. He's not in the bottom drawer with Trump and ilk nor even the 2nd bottom one (where Farage and Johnson live) but he's now in the middle one. Farage, btw, used to be in the middle one (since despite his politics I found him engaging and sincere) but his craven Trumpery in recent times led to him being demoted to the drawer he's in now - the 2nd bottom one with Johnson. Most of the current cabinet are in there too.
Shout out for Nick Clegg there too. He went from top drawer to bottom but one just for joining Facebook. To think I voted for him in 2010, and felt sorry for him after not voting for him in 2015!
Console yourself in the knowledge that he’s having to work harder than usual, for this week’s $100k wage packet.
My sister who I live with has tested positive, she says it feels like a bad cold and her energy levels feel low. She is working from home lying on bed watch TV with her laptop tray (she is a textile designer). Hopefully the vacc will do it's job for her and that's all she gets.
Awaiting my PCR result, if it's negative I will have to do a lateral flow before work each day for the next 10 days. Feeling ok for the most part, bit of a headache though that could be anything.
Get your boosters everyone, mine was due today after 7 months since my last dose. Hopefully I am negative and I can get it done next week.
Just had my third. The 1st two hardly registered on the Richter scale, indeed I had a good workout on the day of the 1st one. Proverbs, 16:18 ?? AND GOOD LUCK.
Sir Peter Bottomley has spoken out about the struggles of living on an MP’s salary, calling it ‘desperately difficult’ for some.
Sir Peter says MPs, who are paid £81,932, should be paid the same amount as GPs – whose average salary is £100,700.
The average salary across the UK was £31,461 as of last year. Although he said he currently is not struggling financially, he believes the situation is ‘desperately difficult’ for his newer colleagues.
He added: ‘Although he said he currently is not struggling financially, he believes the situation is ‘desperately difficult’ for his newer colleagues. I don’t know how they manage. It’s really grim.’
Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?
Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.
It is important to them.
Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.
It's odd.
You do seem to run into these people. A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.
I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.
I'm not making this up.
I don’t believe you are making it up.
Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?
I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com
I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.
He is strangely silent.
I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.
I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.
But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.
Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.
It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.
CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
I bet more young women fancy me than you.
So fuck off, old boy.
Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?
Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
We know why they won't explain it.
We do?! Why is it?
Sincere question
My question to you is also sincere.
Please answer it.
What question?
See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.
Thoughts based on your experience?
It's just a buzzword. If anything is wrong with the world - esp if you're a woman - then it's "the patriarchy". In the 60s it would have been "the system". Smash the system! Ten years ago "the man". Stick it to the man!
In 5 years it will be replaced by something else
BTW it's not just young women who use it, I have a couple of middle aged female lefty friends who use it, quite unselfconsciously
A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this
"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature- whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule, obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic. Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."
Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
An encouraging ruling for Boris and disappointing for Sturgeon as it suggests if Sturgeon went to the SC and asked to overturn the UK government's refusal to allow an indyref2, the court would side with Boris and the UK government much as the highest court in Spain declared Catalonia's attempted independence referendum to not be constitutional
That’s a good ruling, which bodes well for the future - but the constitutional positions of Scotland and Catalonia are very different, and really shouldnt be conflated.
Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?
Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.
It is important to them.
Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.
It's odd.
You do seem to run into these people. A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.
I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.
I'm not making this up.
I don’t believe you are making it up.
Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?
I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com
I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.
He is strangely silent.
I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.
I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.
But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.
Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.
It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.
CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
I bet more young women fancy me than you.
So fuck off, old boy.
Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?
Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for.
You're just a tedious troll.
You do a truly amazing impression of Alan Partridge. It’s uncanny.
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
In number of companies I know of, managers have been forbidden by the legal dept. from giving references. All request to HR.
This includes personal references. Everything must go to HR.
Several companies I've encountered don't even ask for references. They assume that the vetting company they employ will contact HR at each company you worked at.
If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?
The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.
The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:
"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."
I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Fear not. I bet Hitler couldn't knit for toffee.
On which point I will confess something shameful to you. For a long time, and because of that, you talking about knitting a lot, I thought you were a woman.
Not being the sort of guy who shares pictures of his erect member with strangers on the internet it does create some doubt as to my gender and, since I have no reason to be offended, you should have no reason to feel ashamed.
Shouldn't make assumptions based on hobbies and interests, though, and your case demonstrated that very well. We have precious few regular female posters, it seems. There was "Beverley" but she hasn't been on here for ages.
A fascinating thread in which a Remainer actually "gets it"
"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"
The public social media accounts of Cllr Tim Wills contain the standard fare of an enthusiastic Conservative borough councillor, with posts showing him canvassing for Tory candidates, attending council meetings and raising local issues. But on a private Telegram chat group, Wills reveals himself to be an enthusiastic supporter of Patriotic Alternative (PA), a racial nationalist and fascist organisation that seeks the removal of ethnic minorities from the UK.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
We know why they won't explain it.
We do?! Why is it?
Sincere question
My question to you is also sincere.
Please answer it.
What question?
See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.
Thoughts based on your experience?
It's just a buzzword. If anything is wrong with the world - esp if you're a woman - then it's "the patriarchy". In the 60s it would have been "the system". Smash the system! Ten years ago "the man". Stick it to the man!
In 5 years it will be replaced by something else
BTW it's not just young women who use it, I have a couple of middle aged female lefty friends who use it, quite unselfconsciously
A fascinating thread in which a Remainer actually "gets it"
"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
The worry must be that, if it’s not happening elsewhere, that your students will be disadvantaged by such a standardised response towards a potential employer?
An encouraging ruling for Boris and disappointing for Sturgeon as it suggests if Sturgeon went to the SC and asked to overturn the UK government's refusal to allow an indyref2, the court would side with Boris and the UK government much as the highest court in Spain declared Catalonia's attempted independence referendum to not be constitutional
Concerning "incorporat[ion of] aspects of international treaties into Scots law". Relevance doubtful; but not as irrelevant as your insistence that Spanish constitutional law is relevant. .
It's slightly weird to see pipsqueak ex-Tory MSPs crowing about this when the parliament of which they were once members unanimously passed those bills ('Neither bill was controversial' to quote the BBC piece). Not for the first time I can't actually discern any coherence in their position.
The last confirmed rise in cases by sample date week on week is 27/9 being higher than 20/9, which has been the case for a few days, though the falls are settling as slight. Still think we're merely at a col with cases (and hospitalisations) before continuing upwards, and have at least 2-3 weeks of rises from university returns and the more gradual build up primary school cases in particular. But the longer we go, the weaker the coming case surge is likely to be, and the more October half term will gain us.
I think the 7 day average case rates will saw tooth quite a bit yet, as different factors come into play (Xmas parties, returns to work, the move indoors), but those mini surges will be on a decaying, downward overall trend between October and Christmas, and though the New Year saw tooth will trend back up weakly, it will not be too long before dipping down again.
I've said I would have gone for a national two week October half term which I'd have announced in August and I would have had more of a plan B to bring to bear on restrictions if needed. I've not changed my view on that, such a modest advanced notice restriction would have better ensured a good position in the run up to Christmas even if we might yet get away without it and it now looks like plan B would have sat untouched.
English cases are thus -
So, the 5-9s have receded as a risk for now. Good. Another one safely watched outside off stump.
And little sign of 15-19 or 20-24 increases yet.
Looking at the map the next incoming ball:
Southern cases w/e 1/10 Vs previous +4600 North and Midlands cases -2300 Nations also look down.
The next thing we want to curve down and stabilise is Southern England, particularly outside London.
They should have just banned the Welsh from playing rugby, it would have been no great loss.
World Rugby is to introduce new laws at the 2027 World Cup that will ban red-green kit clashes to help people with colour vision deficiency (CVD). The measure means Wales or Ireland would have to change jerseys if drawn to play against each other in the tournament or in future fixtures.
Over 300 million people worldwide currently suffer from some form of CVD. The condition is far more prevalent in men, with around one in 12 globally affected by the condition compared to one in 200 women. Red-green colour-blindness is the most common form and is experienced by around 8% of male rugby fans and 0.5% of female supporters.
“From our perspective, if you’re potentially limiting eight per cent of your male audience, that’s a huge number of people who are suddenly switching off,” World Rugby’s research, turf and equipment manager Marc Douglas told the I newspaper.
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
Totally agree. A sea change in British Politics is happening right now.
Labours conference last week when they made clear they will aggressively pitch for the Lexits and those put off by Corbynism.
And this week, a Tory conference big on bluster of better just around the corner, very short on policy that convinces it will be better. Very short on policy that convinces or unconvincing in fact. The Tories are now lost.
The Tories have never been as purely liaises faire as Philip Thompson - maybe in mid eighties when Maggie did a U Turn on monetarism and they just liberalised markets instead, but handful of years later deputy Prime Minister Hestletine is promising intervention before breakfast, tiffin and dinner.
Interesting analysis, from the GRaun feed, that
"In some respects Boris Johnson was presenting himself as the heir to Margaret Thatcher in his conference speech, as he claimed to have the “guts” to address problems bedevilling the British economy for decades (see 9.17am), but rightwing Thatcherites in thinktanks and campaign groups have been among the strongest critics of the speech.
Mark Littlewood, who runs the Institute of Economic Affairs, accused Johnson of just offering “more state intervention and spending”. He said:
'The prime minister says he wants a high wage economy. That requires gains in productivity, which we would see if the government started deregulating rather than over-regulating.
He says he wants a low tax economy, but his government is likely to oversee the highest burden of tax since the Attlee post-war socialist government.
Unnecessarily restricting the supply of labour may lead to wage increases, but these will be passed on in price increases. A strategy to make things more expensive will not create a genuinely high wage economy, merely the illusion of one.
Boris Johnson’s rhetoric is always optimistic and enterprising, but insofar as there were actual policies behind it, they seemed to involve yet more state intervention and spending.'
The Adam Smith Institute, another free market thinktank, said that Johnson’s speech was “vacuous and economically illiterate”, that it set out “an agenda for levelling down”, and that the PM’s policies were inflationary.."
Is that the first time the Guardian have ever approvingly quoted Mark Littlewood from the IEA?
Exactly. The Tories are now actively campaigning on the very opposite to what made the 19th their century. It’s a thing that makes you go hm. Are you sure?
Then again, how long can Boris fly close to the sun with wings of wax? very low in the ConHome poll this week. PB Tories, who should have awoken from their afternoon nap, not on here defending or rallying around Boris vacuous speech from his out of touch world. He won a majority, but so did Maggie in 97. He currently has opinion poll leads she never had.
Meanwhile Ed Davey response is nicely measured and will resonate more in this real world than Johnson’s echo from his parallel universe. “Boris Johnson might as well have made that speech in a parallel universe. Nothing for struggling families facing Universal Credit cuts and soaring bills, nothing for businesses on the brink of bankruptcy and nothing for our nation’s carers. Totally out of touch.”
“there was no attempt to place the speech in any context, to relate it to what is happening in the world today.”
“simple, populist narrative for the country. Broad brush optimism rather than any detail. But the danger of his approach is that the gap between the rhetoric and the reality for people becomes ever more stark, and he sounds increasingly out of touch.”
How long until the punters start saying, the results are not matching the optimistic rhetoric?
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
That's very interesting. In my new job, the one to which I successfully applied, they didn't ask for references at all.
This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.
Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
In number of companies I know of, managers have been forbidden by the legal dept. from giving references. All request to HR.
This includes personal references. Everything must go to HR.
Several companies I've encountered don't even ask for references. They assume that the vetting company they employ will contact HR at each company you worked at.
Interesting. That will be where it is coming from then.
Means the end of references I guess. To some extent, who cares, they weren't that useful. But we still ask for references when appointing. If we're not going to provide useful references, we should not ask for them either.
A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this
"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature- whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule, obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic. Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."
Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.
AH or JB?
AH
Mind you, I think it was Buchan who wrote that "there are certain things one cannot ask of any white man." But I still read him.
If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?
The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.
The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:
"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."
I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Fear not. I bet Hitler couldn't knit for toffee.
On which point I will confess something shameful to you. For a long time, and because of that, you talking about knitting a lot, I thought you were a woman.
Not being the sort of guy who shares pictures of his erect member with strangers on the internet it does create some doubt as to my gender and, since I have no reason to be offended, you should have no reason to feel ashamed.
As another male knitter, there is an odd prejudice out there. I have won prizes for my knitting at local shows, and design my own garments. My wife is a recipient of many fine jumpers.
In one of my books is a lighthouse keeper who knitted his own ganseys all his life (a gansey is a traditional knitted jumper worn by fisherman around the UK and in the Netherlands). Historically, before framework knitting, men would be knitters in a profession.
It is strange. I find knitting very mathematical, which is one of its attractions to me, and was also one of the attractions of this website. So I'd think more men would be interested in knitting if it weren't for the assumptions of gender stereotypes. And I do know another software engineer who knits - he has a bias to patterns with elaborate cables.
I've always been welcomed into otherwise all-female knitting groups, though, and if I'm knitting in public strangers will often want to have a friendly chat about it.
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
In number of companies I know of, managers have been forbidden by the legal dept. from giving references. All request to HR.
This includes personal references. Everything must go to HR.
Several companies I've encountered don't even ask for references. They assume that the vetting company they employ will contact HR at each company you worked at.
Interesting. That will be where it is coming from then.
Means the end of references I guess. To some extent, who cares, they weren't that useful. But we still ask for references when appointing. If we're not going to provide useful references, we should not ask for them either.
References are a tool that's probably been ruined by legal eagles in all honesty.
143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day
Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?
They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.
The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating
We know why they won't explain it.
We do?! Why is it?
Sincere question
My question to you is also sincere.
Please answer it.
What question?
See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.
Thoughts based on your experience?
It's just a buzzword. If anything is wrong with the world - esp if you're a woman - then it's "the patriarchy". In the 60s it would have been "the system". Smash the system! Ten years ago "the man". Stick it to the man!
In 5 years it will be replaced by something else
BTW it's not just young women who use it, I have a couple of middle aged female lefty friends who use it, quite unselfconsciously
Thanks. Interesting.
The big difference, I suppose, is that social media means these buzzwords are much more prevalent: they spread fast and wide
However they probably have a shorter life, thereby, as well
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
In number of companies I know of, managers have been forbidden by the legal dept. from giving references. All request to HR.
This includes personal references. Everything must go to HR.
Several companies I've encountered don't even ask for references. They assume that the vetting company they employ will contact HR at each company you worked at.
Interesting. That will be where it is coming from then.
Means the end of references I guess. To some extent, who cares, they weren't that useful. But we still ask for references when appointing. If we're not going to provide useful references, we should not ask for them either.
Essentially, the Goode Olde Days of references are dead. Killed by legal rules and fear of being sued.
Not sure that what we have is an improvement. But hey....
Used to be the language of diplomacy, and Byron used to fire off letters to foreigners of all sorts and sign them Byron, Pair d'Angleterre, which I always thought was cool. But that was then...
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
The worry must be that, if it’s not happening elsewhere, that your students will be disadvantaged by such a standardised response towards a potential employer?
As I understand it, the law changed some time ago and references are no longer covered by qualified privilege. A lot of employers and other institutions have gone down this route.
They should have just banned the Welsh from playing rugby, it would have been no great loss.
World Rugby is to introduce new laws at the 2027 World Cup that will ban red-green kit clashes to help people with colour vision deficiency (CVD). The measure means Wales or Ireland would have to change jerseys if drawn to play against each other in the tournament or in future fixtures.
Over 300 million people worldwide currently suffer from some form of CVD. The condition is far more prevalent in men, with around one in 12 globally affected by the condition compared to one in 200 women. Red-green colour-blindness is the most common form and is experienced by around 8% of male rugby fans and 0.5% of female supporters.
“From our perspective, if you’re potentially limiting eight per cent of your male audience, that’s a huge number of people who are suddenly switching off,” World Rugby’s research, turf and equipment manager Marc Douglas told the I newspaper.
A fascinating thread in which a Remainer actually "gets it"
"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"
in the twitter-thread that follows, you can find other Remainers also slowly approaching this epiphanic conclusion. Encouraging. There are still, of course, plenty of Remoaners raging at her for even beginning to think that Brexit might be rational
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
That's very interesting. In my new job, the one to which I successfully applied, they didn't ask for references at all.
This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.
Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.
I’m hoping that, by the next time I apply for a CISO position, the lack of any social media profiles will be seen as a positive.
God, that's genius. Some French people really have zero self-awareness. I am sure the Germans, Italians and Spanish will be totally cool with that; and all the Nordics and Eastern Europeans, with their perfect command of English and zero knowledge of French, will be well up for it, too
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
Totally agree. A sea change in British Politics is happening right now.
Labours conference last week when they made clear they will aggressively pitch for the Lexits and those put off by Corbynism.
And this week, a Tory conference big on bluster of better just around the corner, very short on policy that convinces it will be better. Very short on policy that convinces or unconvincing in fact. The Tories are now lost.
The Tories have never been as purely liaises faire as Philip Thompson - maybe in mid eighties when Maggie did a U Turn on monetarism and they just liberalised markets instead, but handful of years later deputy Prime Minister Hestletine is promising intervention before breakfast, tiffin and dinner.
Interesting analysis, from the GRaun feed, that
"In some respects Boris Johnson was presenting himself as the heir to Margaret Thatcher in his conference speech, as he claimed to have the “guts” to address problems bedevilling the British economy for decades (see 9.17am), but rightwing Thatcherites in thinktanks and campaign groups have been among the strongest critics of the speech.
Mark Littlewood, who runs the Institute of Economic Affairs, accused Johnson of just offering “more state intervention and spending”. He said:
'The prime minister says he wants a high wage economy. That requires gains in productivity, which we would see if the government started deregulating rather than over-regulating.
He says he wants a low tax economy, but his government is likely to oversee the highest burden of tax since the Attlee post-war socialist government.
Unnecessarily restricting the supply of labour may lead to wage increases, but these will be passed on in price increases. A strategy to make things more expensive will not create a genuinely high wage economy, merely the illusion of one.
Boris Johnson’s rhetoric is always optimistic and enterprising, but insofar as there were actual policies behind it, they seemed to involve yet more state intervention and spending.'
The Adam Smith Institute, another free market thinktank, said that Johnson’s speech was “vacuous and economically illiterate”, that it set out “an agenda for levelling down”, and that the PM’s policies were inflationary.."
Is that the first time the Guardian have ever approvingly quoted Mark Littlewood from the IEA?
Exactly. The Tories are now actively campaigning on the very opposite to what made the 19th their century. It’s a thing that makes you go hm. Are you sure?
Then again, how long can Boris fly close to the sun with wings of wax? very low in the ConHome poll this week. PB Tories, who should have awoken from their afternoon nap, not on here defending or rallying around Boris vacuous speech from his out of touch world. He won a majority, but so did Maggie in 97. He currently has opinion poll leads she never had.
Meanwhile Ed Davey response is nicely measured and will resonate more in this real world than Johnson’s echo from his parallel universe. “Boris Johnson might as well have made that speech in a parallel universe. Nothing for struggling families facing Universal Credit cuts and soaring bills, nothing for businesses on the brink of bankruptcy and nothing for our nation’s carers. Totally out of touch.”
“there was no attempt to place the speech in any context, to relate it to what is happening in the world today.”
“simple, populist narrative for the country. Broad brush optimism rather than any detail. But the danger of his approach is that the gap between the rhetoric and the reality for people becomes ever more stark, and he sounds increasingly out of touch.”
How long until the punters start saying, the results are not matching the optimistic rhetoric?
And where then the Tories? Will the situation be recoverable after one, two GE losses?
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
That's very interesting. In my new job, the one to which I successfully applied, they didn't ask for references at all.
This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.
Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.
I’m hoping that, by the next time I apply for a CISO position, the lack of any social media profiles will be seen as a positive.
All the advice I've had in recent weeks - from experts in the industry - is that you need to massively up your profile on social media and LinkedIn these days to win work. That's how it's done.
I'm having a real problem processing that and working out how to respond, particularly since I increasingly detest social media and what show-offs most people are on LinkedIn.
A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this
"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature- whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule, obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic. Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."
Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.
AH or JB?
AH
Mind you, I think it was Buchan who wrote that "there are certain things one cannot ask of any white man." But I still read him.
To moisturise?
Yes, he definitely had something about him. Strange to think he was a fairly close contemporary of James Joyce, two (sort of) products of British culture. Did Orwell ever review any of Buchan's books, would be interesting to know what he thought of him?
A fascinating thread in which a Remainer actually "gets it"
"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"
Remainers are not going to be persuaded of any Brexit benefits either.
And the morality/integrity of each side cancels out- we're all terrible irrational people.
So stand by for a decade of the status quo. Then a decade of something indistinguishable from EEA. Then "sod it, we might as well be in the room when the decisions are made" = rejoin.
It's all in the age profile of the Leave vote. The postwar generation who voted out in '75, Leave in '16 and won't be voting at all in '36 or so.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Even the near abroad - he really isn't liked in Scotland.
You can say that again. His disapproval figures are quite astounding.
Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?
Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.
It is important to them.
Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.
It's odd.
You do seem to run into these people. A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.
I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.
I'm not making this up.
I don’t believe you are making it up.
Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?
I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com
I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.
He is strangely silent.
I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.
I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.
But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.
Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.
It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.
CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
I bet more young women fancy me than you.
So fuck off, old boy.
Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?
Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for.
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate ** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
That's very interesting. In my new job, the one to which I successfully applied, they didn't ask for references at all.
This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.
Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.
I’m hoping that, by the next time I apply for a CISO position, the lack of any social media profiles will be seen as a positive.
All the advice I've had in recent weeks - from experts in the industry - is that you need to massively up your profile on social media and LinkedIn these days to win work. That's how it's done.
I'm having a real problem processing that and working out how to respond, particularly since I increasingly detest social media and what show-offs most people are on LinkedIn.
Interesting. I still figure that most companies don’t want the “rockstar” CISO who speaks at conferences, they want the utterly anonymous one who can shake the company into understanding the risks of the 21st century.
Now, there will be publicity-hungry startups looking for the former, but an awful lot of more traditional businesses that need the work doing without the publicity.
A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this
"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature- whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule, obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic. Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."
Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.
AH or JB?
AH
Mind you, I think it was Buchan who wrote that "there are certain things one cannot ask of any white man." But I still read him.
You don't need to ask a white man anything, he'll tell you anyway.
A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this
"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature- whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule, obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic. Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."
Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.
AH or JB?
AH
Mind you, I think it was Buchan who wrote that "there are certain things one cannot ask of any white man." But I still read him.
You don't need to ask a white man anything, he'll tell you anyway.
That reminds me of the old joke, "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much."
Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?
Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.
It is important to them.
Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.
It's odd.
You do seem to run into these people. A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.
I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.
I'm not making this up.
I don’t believe you are making it up.
Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?
I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com
I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.
He is strangely silent.
I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.
I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.
But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.
Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.
It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.
CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
I bet more young women fancy me than you.
So fuck off, old boy.
Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?
Not quite sure how you can accuse someone of being an incel on a mostly anonymous internet forum.
A fascinating thread in which a Remainer actually "gets it"
"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"
Remainers are not going to be persuaded of any Brexit benefits either.
And the morality/integrity of each side cancels out- we're all terrible irrational people.
So stand by for a decade of the status quo. Then a decade of something indistinguishable from EEA. Then "sod it, we might as well be in the room when the decisions are made" = rejoin.
It's all in the age profile of the Leave vote. The postwar generation who voted out in '75, Leave in '16 and won't be voting at all in '36 or so.
Wishcasting
You think the French will let us back in after AUKUS?
Dream on
Also, the ratchet has been thrown entirely the opposite direction. The UK will slowly but surely drift further and further from the EU, legally, politically, economically, militarily: in every way. In 10 years time the idea of Rejoining will seem insane.
Check the polling on EU membership in nations like Switzerland, Iceland or Norway. They really really really do not want to join
"On average, Norwegian voters are strongly opposed to Norwegian membership in the European Union. Polling averaged over a 10-year period shows around 70% of Norwegians voters are opposed to EU membership."
And the tendency has been for Norway to get MORE EU-sceptic over time
Comments
I think the 7 day average case rates will saw tooth quite a bit yet, as different factors come into play (Xmas parties, returns to work, the move indoors), but those mini surges will be on a decaying, downward overall trend between October and Christmas, and though the New Year saw tooth will trend back up weakly, it will not be too long before dipping down again.
I've said I would have gone for a national two week October half term which I'd have announced in August and I would have had more of a plan B to bring to bear on restrictions if needed. I've not changed my view on that, such a modest advanced notice restriction would have better ensured a good position in the run up to Christmas even if we might yet get away without it and it now looks like plan B would have sat untouched.
Sincere question
But I have no evidence for this.
Please answer it.
To think I voted for him in 2010, and felt sorry for him after not voting for him in 2015!
Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.
Well before the need for anything resembling a lockdown, the return to "WFH if you can" would be the easiest bullet in the world to fire (unless you are a supremely wealthy chancellor with untold indirect commercial property interests). And it's quite a surprise they haven't already gone down this route until they've boosted groups 1-9. As we have it from the CMO that it is the thing most likely to impact average daily contacts.
The concern will be that in its haste to put the pandemic firmly behind them, the government has missed an open goal that would have prevented any further restrictions this winter.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/06/sheikh-mohammed-hacked-baroness-shackleton-ex-wife-princess/
Thoughts based on your experience?
It’s been nice to dress respectably again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/05/pfizer-covid-jab-90-effective-against-hospitalisation-for-at-least-6-months
" In 2019, there were 496,370 total deaths in England" (ONS)
56,286,961 2019 population of England (Google)
So in a 28 day period there'd be 38,077 deaths in the population.
Taking a random 38,000 population
(38000 x 38077)/56286961 = 26 deaths.
Given how many cases are amongst schoolkids, it should be lower than that I'd have thought too. If the case numbers were really high in 80+ I might agree, but they're not.
So fuck off, old boy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58794698
An encouraging ruling for Boris and disappointing for Sturgeon as it suggests if Sturgeon went to the SC and asked to overturn the UK government's refusal to allow an indyref2, the court would side with Boris and the UK government much as the highest court in Spain declared Catalonia's attempted independence referendum to not be constitutional
"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we
need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature-
whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule,
obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One
of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic.
Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the
risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know
nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be
answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they
do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to
them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."
Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.
Awaiting my PCR result, if it's negative I will have to do a lateral flow before work each day for the next 10 days. Feeling ok for the most part, bit of a headache though that could be anything.
Get your boosters everyone, mine was due today after 7 months since my last dose. Hopefully I am negative and I can get it done next week.
I don’t rule it out.
However this judgement was made pre-delta and before Israel's warning on waning immunity (at least with a 3-week Pfizer programme). Whether the Uk government still looks so clever as the weather turns we shall have to wait and see. But it looks increasingly like internationally, "fully vaccinated" will come to mean three doses not two. But on the basis that this government will do the right thing only after exploring every alternative, no crowded commuter trains / meeting rooms for me until the booster is in my arm in a month or so's time.
https://twitter.com/julienaubert84/status/1445665732813996036
AND GOOD LUCK.
Sir Peter says MPs, who are paid £81,932, should be paid the same amount as GPs – whose average salary is £100,700.
The average salary across the UK was £31,461 as of last year. Although he said he currently is not struggling financially, he believes the situation is ‘desperately difficult’ for his newer colleagues.
He added: ‘Although he said he currently is not struggling financially, he believes the situation is ‘desperately difficult’ for his newer colleagues. I don’t know how they manage. It’s really grim.’
This comes on the day of the cut of £20 per week to Universal Credit. I suggest Boris gets the CCHQ PR team to kindly give Sir Peter some retraining!
https://twitter.com/MetroUK/status/1445759249489936388?s=20
https://twitter.com/MetroUK/status/1445759252379881472?s=20
https://twitter.com/MetroUK/status/1445759260919418888?s=20
reporting data again? FFS.....
You're just a tedious troll.
In 5 years it will be replaced by something else
BTW it's not just young women who use it, I have a couple of middle aged female lefty friends who use it, quite unselfconsciously
We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.
We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.
We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.
To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)
The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.
Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?
*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate
** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really
This includes personal references. Everything must go to HR.
Several companies I've encountered don't even ask for references. They assume that the vetting company they employ will contact HR at each company you worked at.
"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"
https://twitter.com/v_j_freeman/status/1445656278156529664?s=20
Macron 53%
Le Pen 47%
Macron 55%
Zemmour 45%
Macron 51%
Bertrand 49%
Macron 63%
Melenchon 37%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1445772633484627969?s=20
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1445683512250540044?s=20
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1445773473221992448?s=20
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1445757866325929984?s=20
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2021/10/06/unmasked-tory-councillor-is-secret-supporter-of-uk-fascist-organisation/
It's not hard, is it?
And little sign of 15-19 or 20-24 increases yet.
Looking at the map the next incoming ball:
Southern cases w/e 1/10 Vs previous +4600
North and Midlands cases -2300
Nations also look down.
The next thing we want to curve down and stabilise is Southern England, particularly outside London.
World Rugby is to introduce new laws at the 2027 World Cup that will ban red-green kit clashes to help people with colour vision deficiency (CVD). The measure means Wales or Ireland would have to change jerseys if drawn to play against each other in the tournament or in future fixtures.
Over 300 million people worldwide currently suffer from some form of CVD. The condition is far more prevalent in men, with around one in 12 globally affected by the condition compared to one in 200 women. Red-green colour-blindness is the most common form and is experienced by around 8% of male rugby fans and 0.5% of female supporters.
“From our perspective, if you’re potentially limiting eight per cent of your male audience, that’s a huge number of people who are suddenly switching off,” World Rugby’s research, turf and equipment manager Marc Douglas told the I newspaper.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/06/world-rugby-to-ban-red-green-kit-clashes-help-colour-blind-fans
Then again, how long can Boris fly close to the sun with wings of wax? very low in the ConHome poll this week. PB Tories, who should have awoken from their afternoon nap, not on here defending or rallying around Boris vacuous speech from his out of touch world. He won a majority, but so did Maggie in 97. He currently has opinion poll leads she never had.
Meanwhile Ed Davey response is nicely measured and will resonate more in this real world than Johnson’s echo from his parallel universe. “Boris Johnson might as well have made that speech in a parallel universe. Nothing for struggling families facing Universal Credit cuts and soaring bills, nothing for businesses on the brink of bankruptcy and nothing for our nation’s carers. Totally out of touch.”
“there was no attempt to place the speech in any context, to relate it to what is happening in the world today.”
“simple, populist narrative for the country. Broad brush optimism rather than any detail.
But the danger of his approach is that the gap between the rhetoric and the reality for people becomes ever more stark, and he sounds increasingly out of touch.”
How long until the punters start saying, the results are not matching the optimistic rhetoric?
This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.
Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.
Means the end of references I guess. To some extent, who cares, they weren't that useful. But we still ask for references when appointing. If we're not going to provide useful references, we should not ask for them either.
Mind you, I think it was Buchan who wrote that "there are certain things one cannot ask of any white man." But I still read him.
I've always been welcomed into otherwise all-female knitting groups, though, and if I'm knitting in public strangers will often want to have a friendly chat about it.
However they probably have a shorter life, thereby, as well
Not sure that what we have is an improvement. But hey....
Or is does empty virtue-signalling beat real inclusion in certain instances?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/06/when-virtue-signalling-goes-wrong/
I like the idea of knitting but haven't gotten around to it.
Delicieux
I'm having a real problem processing that and working out how to respond, particularly since I increasingly detest social media and what show-offs most people are on LinkedIn.
Yes, he definitely had something about him.
Strange to think he was a fairly close contemporary of James Joyce, two (sort of) products of British culture. Did Orwell ever review any of Buchan's books, would be interesting to know what he thought of him?
Edit: a quick Google suggests not.
Remainers are not going to be persuaded of any Brexit benefits either.
And the morality/integrity of each side cancels out- we're all terrible irrational people.
So stand by for a decade of the status quo.
Then a decade of something indistinguishable from EEA.
Then "sod it, we might as well be in the room when the decisions are made" = rejoin.
It's all in the age profile of the Leave vote. The postwar generation who voted out in '75, Leave in '16 and won't be voting at all in '36 or so.
Now, there will be publicity-hungry startups looking for the former, but an awful lot of more traditional businesses that need the work doing without the publicity.
You think the French will let us back in after AUKUS?
Dream on
Also, the ratchet has been thrown entirely the opposite direction. The UK will slowly but surely drift further and further from the EU, legally, politically, economically, militarily: in every way. In 10 years time the idea of Rejoining will seem insane.
Check the polling on EU membership in nations like Switzerland, Iceland or Norway. They really really really do not want to join
"On average, Norwegian voters are strongly opposed to Norwegian membership in the European Union. Polling averaged over a 10-year period shows around 70% of Norwegians voters are opposed to EU membership."
And the tendency has been for Norway to get MORE EU-sceptic over time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relations#Opinion_polling
A SLab phoenix performance would be purely at the expense of the SNP. Which the Tories would adore.
And switching SNP MPs for SLab MPs does zilch to challenge the Con Maj.