And so we move onto the budget in 3 weeks where I expect Rishi to increase the minimum wage quite substantially and also adjust IHT and pension tax relief
Then on to Boris leading COP26
Boris has moved left to the dismay of @HYUFD and we should have a better idea of how the conservatives are being received by late November
However, the worldwide gas price explosion must be the biggest worry just now and I would not be surprised to see Boris convene cobra to look how it can be mitigated together with other supply issues
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.
Quite right, people on PB accusing other people on PB of stuff would be an unpleasant new development.
Mr. Dickson, Labour gaining seats and killing the strong attack line of voting Labour and dancing to the SNP's tune would be a substantial concern for the blues. Or should be.
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
And so we move onto the budget in 3 weeks where I expect Rishi to increase the minimum wage quite substantially and also adjust IHT and pension tax relief
Then on to Boris leading COP26
Boris has moved left to the dismay of @HYUFD and we should have a better idea of how the conservatives are being received by late November
However, the worldwide gas price explosion must be the biggest worry just now and I would not be surprised to see Boris convene cobra to look how it can be mitigated together with other supply issues
Squaring the circle of energy price rises and planet-saving, is going to be quite the conundrum for COP26.
As soon as the general public realise, that the politicians all turn up in their private jets to double your electricity and gas bills this winter, expect there to be a massive backlash against it.
It’s the most likely known unknown to take the PM out this year, kicked out by his party as the poll lead evaporates.
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"
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.
Oh Dear
No deer involved - I hope! He said 'women', not 'does'
(If I'd used hinds then yes, some hind-quarters may have been...)
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.
TSE makes a very insightful point there.
The parallel between young women using 'patriarchy' every other sentence and those on the right using 'woke' to label all sorts of stuff that upsets them, is very strong.
For those of us who are rather baffled by the obsession with 'woke' among rightists it's useful to remember that 'it is important to them' - that's why they keep banging on 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
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?
The purpose of references has changed to a strict vetting of facts, has it not ? (Thanks to a change in the legal position.) So not useless, but no longer to be used to choose between candidates.
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.
Exactly. This is what I keep saying. If you are not vaccinated the government plan is you will get immunity via infection, assuming you make it through. You had the chance with th3 vaccine, and turned it down. Tough. You made your choice.*
And so we move onto the budget in 3 weeks where I expect Rishi to increase the minimum wage quite substantially and also adjust IHT and pension tax relief
Then on to Boris leading COP26
Boris has moved left to the dismay of @HYUFD and we should have a better idea of how the conservatives are being received by late November
However, the worldwide gas price explosion must be the biggest worry just now and I would not be surprised to see Boris convene cobra to look how it can be mitigated together with other supply issues
Squaring the circle of energy price rises and planet-saving, is going to be quite the conundrum for COP26.
As soon as the general public realise, that the politicians all turn up in their private jets to double your electricity and gas bills this winter, expect there to be a massive backlash against it.
It’s the most likely known unknown to take the PM out this year, kicked out by his party as the poll lead evaporates.
Once he is 5 to 10 down in polls he will be gone. Poll lead is only thing he has left, considering Maggie knifed after winning landslide, without even abandoning Toryism like Boris has.
The high point from Cop 26 will be rewarding Putin with a special prize for wheening Europe off of gas dependency.
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
The EU itself is becoming less coherent and stable. I think people will look back on the Brexit negotiations as a brief interlude of artificial unity, but Brexit has forever destroyed the EU's sense of inevitable historical destiny.
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."
Same old joke for Yorkshireman. Which leads me to think it's universal.
Mr. Dickson, if Labour mounted a recovery in Scotland that might be cause for concern with the Conservatives.
Nope. They’d be bloody delighted!
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.
An SLab revival would obviously be better for the Union if at the expense of the SNP and also better for Labour as it would mean they could win a majority that now is not possible for them without a Scottish revival.
Tories however would not necessarily be too happy, at present they can refuse indyref2 anyway however well the SNP do but use the threat of a PM Starmer dancing to the tune of Sturgeon and the SNP in a Labour minority government in a hung parliament to turn English voters away from Labour.
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.
There is a danger that if you are a man who knits, you are also likely gay. I don’t think Tom Daley helps in this regard. My science and maths background helps. My mum can not conceive of knitting without following a pattern but for me it’s far easier to design my own. Funniest moment came a couple of years ago when setting up one of my jumpers at a show. Another exhibitor said “I’m sorry to say I’ve knitted that pattern”, to which my mother replied that she’d b3 surprised, as I had designed and knitted it myself... The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
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.
I've said it before - but even some elderly rightwingers in Scotland cannot understand why the English voted in a 'clown', to quote one in my hearing. Perhaps especially them? DavidL's positive remarks yesterday on Mr Johnson's clowniness [not DL's word, but I forget his exact wording] really jarred on my ear in that context.
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.
There is a danger that if you are a man who knits, you are also likely gay. I don’t think Tom Daley helps in this regard. My science and maths background helps. My mum can not conceive of knitting without following a pattern but for me it’s far easier to design my own. Funniest moment came a couple of years ago when setting up one of my jumpers at a show. Another exhibitor said “I’m sorry to say I’ve knitted that pattern”, to which my mother replied that she’d b3 surprised, as I had designed and knitted it myself... The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
Like making a model sailing ship. Though you can't watch TV at the same time.
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
While that's true, isn't support for EEA membership very high in Norway? My memory, and I may be wrong, was that the Norwegians were happier with their EU relationship than any actual EU members.
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.
Doesn't this count as social media? In which case you're rocking. You have a real presence on here. Just attach some of your keynote posts to work proposals and see what happens.
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."
Same old joke for Yorkshireman. Which leads me to think it's universal.
A simple equation from Ben Rich, ex of Skunkworks, when asked his opinion of Harvard Business School: "Two-thirds of HBS = BS"
There is a lot of resentment of French arrogance - and lingering colonial mindset: in Francophone Africa. I can see other countries following Algeria, and French will slowly die out, especially in the Maghreb
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.
There is a danger that if you are a man who knits, you are also likely gay. I don’t think Tom Daley helps in this regard. My science and maths background helps. My mum can not conceive of knitting without following a pattern but for me it’s far easier to design my own. Funniest moment came a couple of years ago when setting up one of my jumpers at a show. Another exhibitor said “I’m sorry to say I’ve knitted that pattern”, to which my mother replied that she’d b3 surprised, as I had designed and knitted it myself... The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
The problem is of course that you get a lot of needle.
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.
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.
That does have a faintly unpleasant ring to it.
It’s as well you’ve never read Prester John. I used it as an example of reflexive racism when I was teaching colonial history.
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
While that's true, isn't support for EEA membership very high in Norway? My memory, and I may be wrong, was that the Norwegians were happier with their EU relationship than any actual EU members.
The Norwegians are enormously wealthy, so are - understandably - extremely happy with being exactly where they are
Switzerland is perhaps a more interesting example. Just as wealthy and stable as Norway, but actively distancing themselves from the EU as much as they can (despite being entirely surrounded by it).
"Swiss abandon years of EU talks and reject treaty"
When I was in Switzerland a couple of weeks ago the anti-EU sentiment was quite noticeable. One guy told me they find the eurocrats overbearing and bullying. At least we have one ally on the continent!
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."
Same old joke for Yorkshireman. Which leads me to think it's universal.
A simple equation from Ben Rich, ex of Skunkworks, when asked his opinion of Harvard Business School: "Two-thirds of HBS = BS"
Every year at options I say to a group of Year 9s who won’t shop me, ‘Don’t do Business Studies, it’s complete BS.’
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
While that's true, isn't support for EEA membership very high in Norway? My memory, and I may be wrong, was that the Norwegians were happier with their EU relationship than any actual EU members.
The Norwegians are enormously wealthy, so are - understandably - extremely happy with being exactly where they are
Switzerland is perhaps a more interesting example. Just as wealthy and stable as Norway, but actively distancing themselves from the EU as much as they can (despite being entirely surrounded by it).
"Swiss abandon years of EU talks and reject treaty"
When I was in Switzerland a couple of weeks ago the anti-EU sentiment was quite noticeable. One guy told me they find the eurocrats overbearing and bullying. At least we have one ally on the continent!
The context created by Brexit will also change the character of future negotiations between Norway/Switzerland and the EU. The next time there's a big legislative package like GDPR or MIFID, it will be much harder politically for the EU to impose it on them if the UK is going its own way.
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 minor but striking feature of the patriarchy is the condescending male assumption that when a woman says "the patriarchy" it's a meaningless buzzword that she has given little thought to.
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.
That does have a faintly unpleasant ring to it.
It's “there are some things that no one has a right to ask of any white man.”, and [edit] the character was being asked to act as a pacifist (in Mr Standfast).
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.
There is a danger that if you are a man who knits, you are also likely gay. I don’t think Tom Daley helps in this regard. My science and maths background helps. My mum can not conceive of knitting without following a pattern but for me it’s far easier to design my own. Funniest moment came a couple of years ago when setting up one of my jumpers at a show. Another exhibitor said “I’m sorry to say I’ve knitted that pattern”, to which my mother replied that she’d b3 surprised, as I had designed and knitted it myself... The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
The problem is of course that you get a lot of needle.
If you have any more purls of wisdom like that, keep them to yourself.
Yesterday I hadn't heard of Zemmour. Now I think he might win the election, looking at the polling numbers.
He’s not officially stated he’s going to run and if he does he will come under much more scrutiny . Once his past comments on women and Muslims get more of an airing he would be lucky to poll 35% against Macron .
The biggest danger to Macron would be Bertrand if he was the only centre right candidate . The French will not elect either Le Pen or Zemmour and current polling overstates their position in a run off against Macron .
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.
There is a danger that if you are a man who knits, you are also likely gay. I don’t think Tom Daley helps in this regard. My science and maths background helps. My mum can not conceive of knitting without following a pattern but for me it’s far easier to design my own. Funniest moment came a couple of years ago when setting up one of my jumpers at a show. Another exhibitor said “I’m sorry to say I’ve knitted that pattern”, to which my mother replied that she’d b3 surprised, as I had designed and knitted it myself... The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
The problem is of course that you get a lot of needle.
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 minor but striking feature of the patriarchy is the condescending male assumption that when a woman says "the patriarchy" it's a meaningless buzzword that she has given little thought to.
Well, it is. It's a very bad fit for what the wombyn are on about, because in a patriarchy the beta males (pretty much everybody) are no better off than the wimmin.
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.
There is a danger that if you are a man who knits, you are also likely gay. I don’t think Tom Daley helps in this regard. My science and maths background helps. My mum can not conceive of knitting without following a pattern but for me it’s far easier to design my own. Funniest moment came a couple of years ago when setting up one of my jumpers at a show. Another exhibitor said “I’m sorry to say I’ve knitted that pattern”, to which my mother replied that she’d b3 surprised, as I had designed and knitted it myself... The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
The problem is of course that you get a lot of needle.
Quite a perl of a quip.
Purl. PERL = practical extraction and reporting language. Or pathologically eclectic rubbish lister, depending who you believe.
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.
There is a danger that if you are a man who knits, you are also likely gay. I don’t think Tom Daley helps in this regard. My science and maths background helps. My mum can not conceive of knitting without following a pattern but for me it’s far easier to design my own. Funniest moment came a couple of years ago when setting up one of my jumpers at a show. Another exhibitor said “I’m sorry to say I’ve knitted that pattern”, to which my mother replied that she’d b3 surprised, as I had designed and knitted it myself... The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
The problem is of course that you get a lot of needle.
If you have any more purls of wisdom like that, keep them to yourself.
And don't forget the 14 barristers including 6 silks to whom it gave gainful employment, giving each a helping hand after the £20 cut in their Universal Credit.
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.
Oh Dear
No deer involved - I hope! He said 'women', not 'does'
(If I'd used hinds then yes, some hind-quarters may have been...)
Yesterday I hadn't heard of Zemmour. Now I think he might win the election, looking at the polling numbers.
He’s not officially stated he’s going to run and if he does he will come under much more scrutiny . Once his past comments on women and Muslims get more of an airing he would be lucky to poll 35% against Macron .
The biggest danger to Macron would be Bertrand if he was the only centre right candidate . The French will not elect either Le Pen or Zemmour and current polling overstates their position in a run off against Macron .
I think Le Pen would do better than Zemmour, but I don't think either beats Macron. I think the French will go for the "devil they know" this time, and Macron will be the first French President since Chirac to get a second term.
Of course, if Bertrand is the LR candidate *and* comes second behind Macron, that changes.
But Macron is very fortunate that three of his most likely second round opponents (Zemmour, Le Pen and Melachon) are beatable.
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 minor but striking feature of the patriarchy is the condescending male assumption that when a woman says "the patriarchy" it's a meaningless buzzword that she has given little thought to.
That could be true, but it also makes it impossible for someone to argue against use of the term, since anyone doing so is presumed to be proving its point.
I'm prepared to accept the premise, but it is at the least convenient that there's no way to reject it.
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.
There is a danger that if you are a man who knits, you are also likely gay. I don’t think Tom Daley helps in this regard. My science and maths background helps. My mum can not conceive of knitting without following a pattern but for me it’s far easier to design my own. Funniest moment came a couple of years ago when setting up one of my jumpers at a show. Another exhibitor said “I’m sorry to say I’ve knitted that pattern”, to which my mother replied that she’d b3 surprised, as I had designed and knitted it myself... The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
The problem is of course that you get a lot of needle.
Quite a perl of a quip.
I wouldn’t want to spend my time doing something so woolly
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.
That does have a faintly unpleasant ring to it.
It's “there are some things that no one has a right to ask of any white man.”, and [edit] the character was being asked to act as a pacifist (in Mr Standfast).
That Herald piece is laughable, trying to construe the foot to the race in "The sword in my hand and the foot to the race,/The wind in my teeth and the rain in my face" as an exhortation to kick the black man.
So this is T3 (so to speak), or at least the TV spinoff.
The name doesn't come directly from the likes of Sandy Rentoul but from the local Leith slang for shooting up drugs, in a derelict railway station - Leith Central I think. So Planespotting would have to do the same in Edinburgh Airport ... though the reference to commuting by plane makes me wonder now.
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 minor but striking feature of the patriarchy is the condescending male assumption that when a woman says "the patriarchy" it's a meaningless buzzword that she has given little thought to.
It's not condescending at all, I actually find it quite delightful when young women use this long word, bothering their pretty little heads with all those syllables. It's sexy
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.
I've said it before - but even some elderly rightwingers in Scotland cannot understand why the English voted in a 'clown', to quote one in my hearing. Perhaps especially them? DavidL's positive remarks yesterday on Mr Johnson's clowniness [not DL's word, but I forget his exact wording] really jarred on my ear in that context.
Edit: not that DL is elderly, of course.
That the 'Absolute Boy' was the alternative option might have something to do with it.
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 minor but striking feature of the patriarchy is the condescending male assumption that when a woman says "the patriarchy" it's a meaningless buzzword that she has given little thought to.
Well, it is. It's a very bad fit for what the wombyn are on about, because in a patriarchy the beta males (pretty much everybody) are no better off than the wimmin.
I see the patriarchy, less wonkily a patriarchal society, all around me. Not as overt as when I was younger, and not as pronounced as in some other places in the world, but very much still there. Not some theory I've read, just the way things are, by and large, big and small.
So this is T3 (so to speak), or at least the TV spinoff.
The name doesn't come directly from the likes of Sandy Rentoul but from the local Leith slang for shooting up, in a derelict railway station - Leith Central I think. So Planespotting would have to shoot up in Edinburgh Airport ... though the reference to commuting by plane makes me wonder now.
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.
That does have a faintly unpleasant ring to it.
It's “there are some things that no one has a right to ask of any white man.”, and [edit] the character was being asked to act as a pacifist (in Mr Standfast).
So this is T3 (so to speak), or at least the TV spinoff.
The name doesn't come directly from the likes of Sandy Rentoul but from the local Leith slang for shooting up, in a derelict railway station - Leith Central I think. So Planespotting would have to shoot up in Edinburgh Airport ... though the reference to commuting by plane makes me wonder now.
Ummmm…I wouldn’t have written that if I were you.
Corrected! I obviously read 'shoot up' in the Leith sense, not the LA sense. Thanks.
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.
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.
Oh Dear
No deer involved - I hope! He said 'women', not 'does'
(If I'd used hinds then yes, some hind-quarters may have been...)
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.
That does have a faintly unpleasant ring to it.
It's “there are some things that no one has a right to ask of any white man.”, and [edit] the character was being asked to act as a pacifist (in Mr Standfast).
I must admit to very much enjoying reading John Buchan, even if some of the views in there are a little... dated.
There is BTW a John Buchan Museum in his native burgh of Peebles on the Tweed (a very pleasant day out quite apart from that) - includes his sister Anna (pen name O. Douglas).
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 minor but striking feature of the patriarchy is the condescending male assumption that when a woman says "the patriarchy" it's a meaningless buzzword that she has given little thought to.
That could be true, but it also makes it impossible for someone to argue against use of the term, since anyone doing so is presumed to be proving its point.
I'm prepared to accept the premise, but it is at the least convenient that there's no way to reject it.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
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.
I've said it before - but even some elderly rightwingers in Scotland cannot understand why the English voted in a 'clown', to quote one in my hearing. Perhaps especially them? DavidL's positive remarks yesterday on Mr Johnson's clowniness [not DL's word, but I forget his exact wording] really jarred on my ear in that context.
Edit: not that DL is elderly, of course.
That the 'Absolute Boy' was the alternative option might have something to do with it.
You're right, of course; I'm actually thinking more of reaction to the Tories selecting Mr Johnson as Party Leader. Though it's still odd given that Ruth Davidson was herself very much in the same mould as Mr Johnson, not that either would like that comparison.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
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.
Doesn't this count as social media? In which case you're rocking. You have a real presence on here. Just attach some of your keynote posts to work proposals and see what happens.
Lol. A Tory Brexiteer and anti-Woke activist? I'd last 5 minutes mate.
Weirdly, I consider this blog a private club of 30-40 like-minded obsessives, even though I know it's ultimately very public.
District judge Susan Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the high-profile protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters. Instead, their aim was to clear the site of protesters and then begin the construction work.
She said: “There is no evidence of any constructor or construction taking place on the land at that time.”
Maybe something omitted in that, but that doesn’t make sense. Surely HS2’s insurance would have been void if they’d commenced work with protestors on site.
Seen the Johnson speech now. Really odd. It was quite literally all about the jokes. That's when he came alive, when he meant it, when he believed in and understood what he was saying. That was the authentic material. All the rest, future of the country, policy direction, political priorities, the "vision thing", all of that was gabbled and mumbled at a million miles an hour, simply something to get through until the next joke. It might as well have been bla bla bla. Just really really odd. There's surely never been a PM like this, or even close.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
That's incorrect, I've already had counsel's view on this.
Ultimately this boils down to the Scotland Act 1998* and the Scottish government acting ultra vires.
*Note it has been amended subsequently, but that's where the interpretation will be.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Terrific effort. I'd have missed the putt. Can't putt for toffee. I have a 12 handicap long game and a 36 short game.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
District judge Susan Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the high-profile protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters. Instead, their aim was to clear the site of protesters and then begin the construction work.
She said: “There is no evidence of any constructor or construction taking place on the land at that time.”
Maybe something omitted in that, but that doesn’t make sense. Surely HS2’s insurance would have been void if they’d commenced work with protestors on site.
That's asinine reasoning, seems like the judge was searching to let them off. Doesn't that open the way for most construction sites, roadworks and civil engineering projects to be occupied overnight or during the weekend ?
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?
Yep. Particularly in smaller employers who might not have come across it and understand it as a refusal to reference.
I'll be letting my students know I can't give them a useful reference and hope they have other options
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
Since it’s not that long ago that The National was pushing the line from Business for Scotland that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in Scotland, I would treat their opinions on this with some reserve.
The part in bold is nonsensical anyway. If it isn’t within their powers, it doesn’t matter what was in their manifesto. Just as it would make no difference if we elected a Green government pledged to stop all mining in Brazil.
'Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude'
I'd point out you could argue that R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland shows the judges on SCOTUK are willing to partake in a constitutional crisis by adhering to the law.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Terrific effort. I'd have missed the putt. Can't putt for toffee. I have a 12 handicap long game and a 36 short game.
I discovered today that there has been exactly one hole-in-one on a par 4 hole in the whole of PGA history.
And what's crazy is that it happened by bouncing off the putter of another golfer and into the hole.
District judge Susan Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the high-profile protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters. Instead, their aim was to clear the site of protesters and then begin the construction work.
She said: “There is no evidence of any constructor or construction taking place on the land at that time.”
Maybe something omitted in that, but that doesn’t make sense. Surely HS2’s insurance would have been void if they’d commenced work with protestors on site.
That's asinine reasoning, seems like the judge was searching to let them off. Doesn't that open the way for most construction sites, roadworks and civil engineering projects to be occupied overnight or during the weekend ?
Some years ago, a group of protestors were let off criminal damage charges related to Ratcliffe on Soar because they argued damage to the power station was designed to prevent the greater crime of coal emissions.
Their lawyers couldn’t point to where that was against UK law, but they still got the judgement.
Which merely proves that the idea of an unbiased judge isn’t very accurate.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
'Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude'
I'd point out you could argue that R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland shows the judges on SCOTUK are willing to partake in a constitutional crisis by adhering to the law.
Miller was an excellent judgement - basically just said Parliament is in charge, which is correct. I'm sure if they'd wanted to they could have crafted something along the lines of the outrageous Marbury vs Maddison which gave SCOTUS more power than God to SCOTUK. It's to their credit that they didn't.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
That's incorrect, I've already had counsel's view on this.
Ultimately this boils down to the Scotland Act 1998* and the Scottish government acting ultra vires.
*Note it has been amended subsequently, but that's where the interpretation will be.
Interesting, especially that you have had counsel's view on this. I t wouldn't surprise me if the SA 1998 was worded with this in mind.
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Terrific effort. I'd have missed the putt. Can't putt for toffee. I have a 12 handicap long game and a 36 short game.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
The Supreme Court would ‘uphold its right to ignore the result’ regardless. That is what Parliamentary sovereignty means. The vote could be 99-1 on 100% turnout and (in theory) Westminster could still ignore it.
The question is whether it is lawful to proceed with such a referendum without the sanction of Westminster. And if not, and it goes ahead, who pays.
Some on here were asking here about age profile of death from covid.
Useful graphic here:
Colin Angus @VictimOfMaths I've been thinking about the age distribution of COVID deaths this morning.
Really clear evidence in this plot of the vaccine rollout shifting the age profile of deaths away from the older, more vulnerable groups, who were jabbed first.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Perhaps this is linked to the bonkers French EU language thingy
To be fair, I'd find that pretty humiliating if I was a patriotic proud Frenchman.
France is royally fucking up in Africa. Check this remarkable document, the UK is regarded as more important and helpful than France in every quarter of the continent. Despite - I’m guessing - France having more trade there (and certainly more soldiers). Indeed the UK climbs as France slides
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Wouldn't the SNP also need the co-operation of all the Scottish councils to actually hold a referendum? And without the consent of the UK government, I think it's pretty likely that at least one unionist leaning one would refuse pretty much invalidating the entire thing.
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
A referendum without the consent of Westminster would be boycotted by unionists. And so, sure, there would be a clear vote for independence.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
Exactly, if Yes was on 60%+ and the SNP had won a thumping majority in May then indyref2 would be hard for Westminster to stop even though legally it could do so.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
There is a substantial majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. Which raises serious questions about your analysis.
The governing SNP and Greens got only 49% on the constituency vote at Holyrood in May and only 48.4% on the list, that is not a thumping majority for indyref2 on any grounds
Boris Johnson got 43.4% of the vote and the Faragist ego trip 2.0%.
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
District judge Susan Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the high-profile protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters. Instead, their aim was to clear the site of protesters and then begin the construction work.
She said: “There is no evidence of any constructor or construction taking place on the land at that time.”
Maybe something omitted in that, but that doesn’t make sense. Surely HS2’s insurance would have been void if they’d commenced work with protestors on site.
Sounds as if it's an aggravated trespass charge, which happens "when a person trespasses on land and, in relation to the lawful activities of others, intimidates them so as to deter them from engaging in that activity or obstructs or disrupts that activity in any way." The reasoning is bonkers, because clearing the site of protesters is itself a lawful activity. Not sure insurance policies come into it.
Perhaps this is linked to the bonkers French EU language thingy
To be fair, I'd find that pretty humiliating if I was a patriotic proud Frenchman.
France is royally fucking up in Africa. Check this remarkable document, the UK is regarded as more important and helpful than France in every quarter of the continent. Despite - I’m guessing - France having more trade there (and certainly more soldiers). Indeed the UK climbs as France slides
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.
Nope; it’s not that. If the 38,000 were distributed evenly as per the age distribution of the country (they’re not; they’re skewed far younger), you’d expect 20-30 such deaths.
With the young skew we’ve got, so heavily focused on the young, you’d expect single figures. Which are almost certainly more than over matched by the missed deaths after 28 days.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
Some on here were asking here about age profile of death from covid.
Useful graphic here:
Colin Angus @VictimOfMaths I've been thinking about the age distribution of COVID deaths this morning.
Really clear evidence in this plot of the vaccine rollout shifting the age profile of deaths away from the older, more vulnerable groups, who were jabbed first.
Fantastic stuff. What I'd be really interested to see is the age profile of the deaths of the double jabbed (plus three weeks or whatever). I guess we might never get to see that.
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 2h Just a handy reminder to Twitter that most people in this country were busy at work today when Boris Johnson made his conference speech, will catch only a glimpse of it on the 6pm telly news and won't remember anything about it tomorrow. You're welcome.
Some on here were asking here about age profile of death from covid.
Useful graphic here:
Colin Angus @VictimOfMaths I've been thinking about the age distribution of COVID deaths this morning.
Really clear evidence in this plot of the vaccine rollout shifting the age profile of deaths away from the older, more vulnerable groups, who were jabbed first.
Fantastic stuff. What I'd be really interested to see is the age profile of the deaths of the double jabbed (plus three weeks or whatever). I guess we might never get to see that.
Comments
Then on to Boris leading COP26
Boris has moved left to the dismay of @HYUFD and we should have a better idea of how the conservatives are being received by late November
However, the worldwide gas price explosion must be the biggest worry just now and I would not be surprised to see Boris convene cobra to look how it can be mitigated together with other supply issues
As soon as the general public realise, that the politicians all turn up in their private jets to double your electricity and gas bills this winter, expect there to be a massive backlash against it.
It’s the most likely known unknown to take the PM out this year, kicked out by his party as the poll lead evaporates.
Which is not so hard to get, either.
(If I'd used hinds then yes, some hind-quarters may have been...)
The parallel between young women using 'patriarchy' every other sentence and those on the right using 'woke' to label all sorts of stuff that upsets them, is very strong.
For those of us who are rather baffled by the obsession with 'woke' among rightists it's useful to remember that 'it is important to them' - that's why they keep banging on about it.
They are still wrong of course.
(Thanks to a change in the legal position.)
So not useless, but no longer to be used to choose between candidates.
*Obviously not fair for some (medical or age).
The high point from Cop 26 will be rewarding Putin with a special prize for wheening Europe off of gas dependency.
Algeria is officially abandoning French in its universities, starting with Maths and AI, in favour of English
https://twitter.com/ennaharonline/status/1445730352111263744?s=20
Perhaps this is linked to the bonkers French EU language thingy
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/935490603697233921
Tories however would not necessarily be too happy, at present they can refuse indyref2 anyway however well the SNP do but use the threat of a PM Starmer dancing to the tune of Sturgeon and the SNP in a Labour minority government in a hung parliament to turn English voters away from Labour.
An SLab revival would remove that attack line
The act of knitting is quite relaxing and easy when watching tv. Mindfullness without the bullshit...
Edit: not that DL is elderly, of course.
"Two-thirds of HBS = BS"
"Interesting debate (via Sky News Arabia) how Morocco is moving to using English as main foreign language replacing French...Would be major blow to France https://skynewsarabia.com/middle-east/1465838-المغرب-توجه-الإنجليزية-الضربة-القاضية-للفرنسية؟"
https://twitter.com/gnuseibeh/status/1441311010149715973?s=20
"French" Rwanda switched to English some time ago, of course
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1445805301203042307?s=20
'It’s such a massive story – it’s all Los Angeles back and forth to Edinburgh'
Switzerland is perhaps a more interesting example. Just as wealthy and stable as Norway, but actively distancing themselves from the EU as much as they can (despite being entirely surrounded by it).
"Swiss abandon years of EU talks and reject treaty"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57251681
When I was in Switzerland a couple of weeks ago the anti-EU sentiment was quite noticeable. One guy told me they find the eurocrats overbearing and bullying. At least we have one ally on the continent!
I was going to say strung up and bled to death or knifed, suddenly thought twice about the language.
Edit: so, strictly, not JB himself.
A couple of rather different views:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12052647.first-degree-racism-and-snobbery-with-violence/
https://www.scottishreviewofbooks.org/2015/03/in-pursuit-of-john-buchan/
The biggest danger to Macron would be Bertrand if he was the only centre right candidate . The French will not elect either Le Pen or Zemmour and current polling overstates their position in a run off against Macron .
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/vii-Hacking-fact-Finding-judgment-5.5.2021.pdf
Of course, if Bertrand is the LR candidate *and* comes second behind Macron, that changes.
But Macron is very fortunate that three of his most likely second round opponents (Zemmour, Le Pen and Melachon) are beatable.
I'm prepared to accept the premise, but it is at the least convenient that there's no way to reject it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T2_Trainspotting
So this is T3 (so to speak), or at least the TV spinoff.
The name doesn't come directly from the likes of Sandy Rentoul but from the local Leith slang for shooting up drugs, in a derelict railway station - Leith Central I think. So Planespotting would have to do the same in Edinburgh Airport ... though the reference to commuting by plane makes me wonder now.
I should have said people with cervixes.
http://www.johnbuchanstory.co.uk/
"The entire basis for arguing that a second referendum would be lawful even without Westminster's consent is that it does not affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland. It would be entirely up to the Westminster Parliament to decide how to react to the outcome of that referendum. The mere fact of holding a referendum does not impact upon Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland, which was the crux of today's ruling.
Moreover, there is a very different political context. The judges in the Supreme Court would be aware that the current Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum. Were the Court to rule that it could not do so, it would be in effect overruling the outcome of a democratic election and moreover making a fundamental change to the constitutional nature of the UK, changing it from the traditional understanding of a voluntary union into a union founded on compulsion. This would have huge political ramifications for the whole of the UK but especially in Scotland. Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude."
My best hole over the summer was a birdie at a 534 yard Par 5. I hardly ever get a birdie. This was a solid drive, just off the fairway to the right, then a cracking 7 wood well short and left of the green - and the hard ground and downhill left to right terrain took it onto the green to 12 feet from the hole. And I holed the putt.
Playing on my own at the time, only a couple of rabbits looking on.
Weirdly, I consider this blog a private club of 30-40 like-minded obsessives, even though I know it's ultimately very public.
District judge Susan Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the high-profile protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters. Instead, their aim was to clear the site of protesters and then begin the construction work.
She said: “There is no evidence of any constructor or construction taking place on the land at that time.”
Maybe something omitted in that, but that doesn’t make sense. Surely HS2’s insurance would have been void if they’d commenced work with protestors on site.
Ultimately this boils down to the Scotland Act 1998* and the Scottish government acting ultra vires.
*Note it has been amended subsequently, but that's where the interpretation will be.
But with the referendum having be unapproved, the UK government would simply refuse to negotiate independence with Scotland.
And just as with Catalonia, I don't think that a boycotted election would embolden the Scottish government enough for UDI. You can't go the UDI route where support for independence is 50/50. It simply won't happen.
Now, I'm not a nutter who thinks that there are no circumstances when another independence referendum would be justified. If the SNP were to get 50% of the vote at either the next Scottish or UK General Election, I would say that the Scots had spoken, and that they had clearly expressed a wish. But we're not there. The SNP is polling - what - 41-42% in the polls. That's not clear evidence that the Scots have changed their mind, that's clear evidence that stasis continues.
I'll be letting my students know I can't give them a useful reference and hope they have other options
The part in bold is nonsensical anyway. If it isn’t within their powers, it doesn’t matter what was in their manifesto. Just as it would make no difference if we elected a Green government pledged to stop all mining in Brazil.
'Judges would be very wary of igniting a constitutional crisis of that magnitude'
I'd point out you could argue that R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland shows the judges on SCOTUK are willing to partake in a constitutional crisis by adhering to the law.
And what's crazy is that it happened by bouncing off the putter of another golfer and into the hole.
Their lawyers couldn’t point to where that was against UK law, but they still got the judgement.
Which merely proves that the idea of an unbiased judge isn’t very accurate.
Instead Yes is only around 50% at best and the SNP failed to get a majority in May so even if the SNP held an indyref2 at least half of Scottish voters would boycott it and Westminster could and would ignore the result and the SC would uphold its right to ignore the result.
The question is whether it is lawful to proceed with such a referendum without the sanction of Westminster. And if not, and it goes ahead, who pays.
Useful graphic here:
Colin Angus
@VictimOfMaths
I've been thinking about the age distribution of COVID deaths this morning.
Really clear evidence in this plot of the vaccine rollout shifting the age profile of deaths away from the older, more vulnerable groups, who were jabbed first.
https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1445704247224401927
https://www.theafricareport.com/73566/in-africa-frances-image-takes-a-hit-but-turkey-qatar-and-the-uaes-are-on-the-up/
Macron is not helping. Recently he said ‘between France and Africa there must be a love affair’.
Mate, you invaded and colonised them. They are not obliged to ‘love you’ - or anyone.
The simple tone of voice is so jarring and wrong, and Africans have noticed
https://www.theafricareport.com/52774/does-macron-understand-how-much-influence-france-has-lost-in-africa-achille-mbembe/
That is not a thumping majority for hard Brexit with a border in the Irish Sea on any grounds.
Except the number of seats won, which is the only metric that actually matters.
I’m actually sympathetic to your general argument but on this specific point you’re making a fool of yourself.
The key point is that MSPs can’t campaign on a promise to *hold* a referendum as they have no power to do so. Only to *ask* for one. Which is different.
If the 38,000 were distributed evenly as per the age distribution of the country (they’re not; they’re skewed far younger), you’d expect 20-30 such deaths.
With the young skew we’ve got, so heavily focused on the young, you’d expect single figures. Which are almost certainly more than over matched by the missed deaths after 28 days.
‘Wherever France has been present, it has mingled. It has also been the land of creolization, of crossbreeding, of mixed marriages. A country where human adventures were allowed. Others were present in a colonial form in Africa and never mixed. Like it or not, France has a part of Africa in her. Our destinies are linked.’
Africans should be in a ‘love affair’ with France because France graciously allowed ‘CROSSBREEDING’
https://www.theafricareport.com/51475/president-macron-between-france-and-africa-it-must-be-a-love-story/
Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
·
2h
Just a handy reminder to Twitter that most people in this country were busy at work today when Boris Johnson made his conference speech, will catch only a glimpse of it on the 6pm telly news and won't remember anything about it tomorrow. You're welcome.