A very sad day indeed, but not alas an altogether surprising one. Our MPs have been increasingly subject to harassment, violent threats, and violent acts, in recent years. They rarely mention it, preferring just to get on with their jobs and go on meeting and serving their constituents. We should remember and cherish that, even (in fact, especially) when we strongly disagree with their politics.
Very sad indeed as this incident is , I would disagree with you that MPs are just getting on with their jobs. The current government are venal and useless at best and are not held to account by MPs. Many are NOT doing their job. Politics at present is about as low as it can get.
Interesting that Tobias Ellwood today said that MPs surgery's should stop being face to face, just two days after Javid said patients should demand f2f consultations with GP's, and name and shame those who don't. One rule for them hey?
I cant even figure out what point you think you are making there.
Just contrasting the attitudes to face to face surgery's with the public.
And drawing an utterly false equivalence based on no evidence what-so-ever. Well done.
No. Either work can be done effectively electronically or on phone, or not.
Attacks on health service workers are not unknown either, this was our ED in 2018:
I think the key point here is that doctors are not terrorist targets, in the way that MP's perhaps are.
I am a bit concerned the public sector have got too comfortable with teams and zoom. My son's parents evening is on teams - I don't see why that needs to be the case and would prefer it to be in person. I was speaking to a planning officer in a major northern city last week and he said that he hasn't done a single site visit in a year; large planning applications are being decided on the basis of streetview. Some medical consultations can be done over the phone, but a large proportion of examinations must surely be done in person.
A very sad day indeed, but not alas an altogether surprising one. Our MPs have been increasingly subject to harassment, violent threats, and violent acts, in recent years. They rarely mention it, preferring just to get on with their jobs and go on meeting and serving their constituents. We should remember and cherish that, even (in fact, especially) when we strongly disagree with their politics.
Very sad indeed as this incident is , I would disagree with you that MPs are just getting on with their jobs. The current government are venal and useless at best and are not held to account by MPs. Many are NOT doing their job. Politics at present is about as low as it can get.
Interesting that Tobias Ellwood today said that MPs surgery's should stop being face to face, just two days after Javid said patients should demand f2f consultations with GP's, and name and shame those who don't. One rule for them hey?
I cant even figure out what point you think you are making there.
Simple , when it is for themselves MPs can sort it out no problem regardless of cost or hassles. They are less punctilious when it is about other people. Cue them all wanting armoured limousines, armed guards etc so they can ape royalty and feel important. Hypocrites all, look at the amount of people being stabbed in the streets every day , have you seen them give a jot or put police on streets or done anything much to fix it , will not hold my breath waiting on a reply.
That's a faintly disgusting attitude. Yes there is a certain amount of panic at the moment but it's born out of shock and grief not self aggrandizement. From your previous comments you'd be the first to condemn MPs if they ceased to make themselves publicly available. Most MPs take their commitments to their constituents very seriously and that was certainly true of David Amess.
A very sad day indeed, but not alas an altogether surprising one. Our MPs have been increasingly subject to harassment, violent threats, and violent acts, in recent years. They rarely mention it, preferring just to get on with their jobs and go on meeting and serving their constituents. We should remember and cherish that, even (in fact, especially) when we strongly disagree with their politics.
Very sad indeed as this incident is , I would disagree with you that MPs are just getting on with their jobs. The current government are venal and useless at best and are not held to account by MPs. Many are NOT doing their job. Politics at present is about as low as it can get.
Interesting that Tobias Ellwood today said that MPs surgery's should stop being face to face, just two days after Javid said patients should demand f2f consultations with GP's, and name and shame those who don't. One rule for them hey?
I cant even figure out what point you think you are making there.
Just contrasting the attitudes to face to face surgery's with the public.
And drawing an utterly false equivalence based on no evidence what-so-ever. Well done.
No. Either work can be done effectively electronically or on phone, or not.
Attacks on health service workers are not unknown either, this was our ED in 2018:
Just completely untrue. The daughter of a friend is having severe psychological problems. We were mystified as to why her GP hadn't picked up the fact she has halved in weight in 3 months, until we discovered she was consulting online. And I am embarrassed to be explaining this to a doctor, but some cancer patients, by no means all, actually look as if they have cancer.
Sure, and I think that some issues can only be addressed face to face by MPs too.
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
Nice sentiments, but you might like to share them with Angela Rayner, who clearly wouldn't want to live next door to one of those Tories....
You've been banging on about Rayner's foolish comments for the last 20 hours. You clearly feel you can score political points by doing so. It is very disrespectful to Mr Amess.
Just watching Johnson and Starmer together in Leigh-on-Sea. That is a much better look than your constant trolling.
Its not trolling. Rayner's comment is just the sort of disrespectful comment that needs to be stopped.
A very sad day indeed, but not alas an altogether surprising one. Our MPs have been increasingly subject to harassment, violent threats, and violent acts, in recent years. They rarely mention it, preferring just to get on with their jobs and go on meeting and serving their constituents. We should remember and cherish that, even (in fact, especially) when we strongly disagree with their politics.
Very sad indeed as this incident is , I would disagree with you that MPs are just getting on with their jobs. The current government are venal and useless at best and are not held to account by MPs. Many are NOT doing their job. Politics at present is about as low as it can get.
Interesting that Tobias Ellwood today said that MPs surgery's should stop being face to face, just two days after Javid said patients should demand f2f consultations with GP's, and name and shame those who don't. One rule for them hey?
I cant even figure out what point you think you are making there.
Just contrasting the attitudes to face to face surgery's with the public.
And drawing an utterly false equivalence based on no evidence what-so-ever. Well done.
No. Either work can be done effectively electronically or on phone, or not.
Attacks on health service workers are not unknown either, this was our ED in 2018:
I think the key point here is that doctors are not terrorist targets, in the way that MP's perhaps are.
I am a bit concerned the public sector have got too comfortable with teams and zoom. My son's parents evening is on teams - I don't see why that needs to be the case and would prefer it to be in person. I was speaking to a planning officer in a major northern city last week and he said that he hasn't done a single site visit in a year; large planning applications are being decided on the basis of streetview. Some medical consultations can be done over the phone, but a large proportion of examinations must surely be done in person.
In August 58% of GP consultations were face to face.
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
To be fair to Ms Slater that's pre yesterday's events.
But it's par for the course for the sesspit that is Scottish politics. It's such a shame 45pc vote for such devisive left wing nationalism.
Holy shit she actually tweeted that Today??
PB ain't got shit compared to SNP types
Do London buses still put a bus seat in the lane behind them to show they are broken down? Because I think your outrage bus needs an equivalent indicator. What are you on about?
We're averaging what, 1 serious attack knife/sword attack per parliament? That's enough to require a response. MPs should be armed, if they lose the election they can hand over their weapon to the next guy at the count.
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
I dont think that issue should be minimised. But each role is different and one MP talking about not going face to face is hardly equivalent to the Health Secretary wanting GPs to go face to face, yet you drew a direct connection to presumably illustrate supposed hypocrisy.
Some roles will be able to minimise face to face, some perhaps could but should not, but each would be considered separately to my mind. My cousin was attacked many times as a paramedic, and is no longer one, but that role could not stop some public interaction taking place - would it make sense to contrast them with an MP considering if constituent surgeries should take place face to face? Would it be fair for GPs to not go face to face as other doctors and health professionals do?
You and yours have gone above and beyond, sterling work. But the attempted comparison was logically unsound.
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
To be fair to Ms Slater that's pre yesterday's events.
But it's par for the course for the sesspit that is Scottish politics. It's such a shame 45pc vote for such devisive left wing nationalism.
Holy shit she actually tweeted that Today??
PB ain't got shit compared to SNP types
Do London buses still put a bus seat in the lane behind them to show they are broken down? Because I think your outrage bus needs an equivalent indicator. What are you on about?
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
To be fair to Ms Slater that's pre yesterday's events.
But it's par for the course for the sesspit that is Scottish politics. It's such a shame 45pc vote for such devisive left wing nationalism.
Holy shit she actually tweeted that Today??
PB ain't got shit compared to SNP types
Do London buses still put a bus seat in the lane behind them to show they are broken down? Because I think your outrage bus needs an equivalent indicator. What are you on about?
We're averaging what, 1 serious attack knife/sword attack per parliament? That's enough to require a response. MPs should be armed, if they lose the election they can hand over their weapon to the next guy at the count.
Is that serious? Give the DUP guns! ...and what about Claire Raynor?
The Americanisation of British life continues.
Clearly all areas of contact with the public need risk assessing in terms of safety, but there is no real way of stopping such attacks, short of locking MPs in gilded cages.
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
Nice sentiments, but you might like to share them with Angela Rayner, who clearly wouldn't want to live next door to one of those Tories....
You've been banging on about Rayner's foolish comments for the last 20 hours. You clearly feel you can score political points by doing so. It is very disrespectful to Mr Amess.
Just watching Johnson and Starmer together in Leigh-on-Sea. That is a much better look than your constant trolling.
Its not trolling. Rayner's comment is just the sort of disrespectful comment that needs to be stopped.
I don't disagree with your point that Rayner should curtail her language.
The direct link between Rayner and Mr Amess's death, which this poster keeps alluding to ( and then adds something to the effect of "I am not blaming Rayner, but ..." is very unhelpful and tasteless.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
@ Nick Palmer The superimposition of generalised or supposed characteristics of a group onto an individual is discrimination. In almost any sotuation it is unacceptable. As you say it is only a small stones throw away from racism.
Some level of generalisation about groups of people is necessary to have productive discourse. Otherwise you can never make any meaningful comment about the direction that society is taking, and the challenges faced by groups within it. Belief that everything is transcended by the individual can lead to bad conclusions - for instance you could conclude that there is no problem with religious extremism; there are just bad people. This would obviously be an error.
Humans organise themselves in to groups, and these groups are often characterised by shared ideas and values. This is objective reality, and has been the case forever.
Yes, well, generalisation about generalisations is also risky . But two points:
1. Generalising about accidents of birth (being black or Paraguayan or whatever) is several degrees stupider than generalising about a group that people choose to join as adults. Sometimes upbringing and childhood environment will be important, but not simply nationality or colour, and people often grow away from their upbringing anyway.
2. Even with groups that people voluntarily join as adults, assumptions that you might reasonably make should only be a starting point in looking at an individual. BigG and HYUFD have generally been Conservatives most of their lives, but it's probably difficult to say much that is true of both of them. In Britain in particular, shared groups like these are broad churches and include a multitude of very different people.
There is no inconsistency between generalising about observable shared characteristics about groups, and also respecting the fact that people are individuals. Our obsession with the latter should not prohibit the former.
I would like to think, for instance, that the deputy leader of the labour party respects conservative MPs as individuals whilst also holding the view that, as a group, they are scum. The latter is not a view that I share, but she should be able to make such an observation so the accuracy or otherwise of it can be debated.
A very sad day indeed, but not alas an altogether surprising one. Our MPs have been increasingly subject to harassment, violent threats, and violent acts, in recent years. They rarely mention it, preferring just to get on with their jobs and go on meeting and serving their constituents. We should remember and cherish that, even (in fact, especially) when we strongly disagree with their politics.
Very sad indeed as this incident is , I would disagree with you that MPs are just getting on with their jobs. The current government are venal and useless at best and are not held to account by MPs. Many are NOT doing their job. Politics at present is about as low as it can get.
Interesting that Tobias Ellwood today said that MPs surgery's should stop being face to face, just two days after Javid said patients should demand f2f consultations with GP's, and name and shame those who don't. One rule for them hey?
I cant even figure out what point you think you are making there.
Just contrasting the attitudes to face to face surgery's with the public.
And drawing an utterly false equivalence based on no evidence what-so-ever. Well done.
No. Either work can be done effectively electronically or on phone, or not.
Attacks on health service workers are not unknown either, this was our ED in 2018:
I think the key point here is that doctors are not terrorist targets, in the way that MP's perhaps are.
I am a bit concerned the public sector have got too comfortable with teams and zoom. My son's parents evening is on teams - I don't see why that needs to be the case and would prefer it to be in person. I was speaking to a planning officer in a major northern city last week and he said that he hasn't done a single site visit in a year; large planning applications are being decided on the basis of streetview. Some medical consultations can be done over the phone, but a large proportion of examinations must surely be done in person.
In August 58% of GP consultations were face to face.
As I mentioned yesterday my GP practice is now doing exactly the same shifts for face to face that they did pre Covid. The GP mentioned to me that the telephone consultations really didn't work for them. Firstly, it was difficult to assess the seriousness of the situation and secondly there were far too many of them because people asked for telephone consultations for assurance or just to be sure in the way they would not ask for a face to face.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
A very sad day indeed, but not alas an altogether surprising one. Our MPs have been increasingly subject to harassment, violent threats, and violent acts, in recent years. They rarely mention it, preferring just to get on with their jobs and go on meeting and serving their constituents. We should remember and cherish that, even (in fact, especially) when we strongly disagree with their politics.
Very sad indeed as this incident is , I would disagree with you that MPs are just getting on with their jobs. The current government are venal and useless at best and are not held to account by MPs. Many are NOT doing their job. Politics at present is about as low as it can get.
Interesting that Tobias Ellwood today said that MPs surgery's should stop being face to face, just two days after Javid said patients should demand f2f consultations with GP's, and name and shame those who don't. One rule for them hey?
I cant even figure out what point you think you are making there.
Just contrasting the attitudes to face to face surgery's with the public.
And drawing an utterly false equivalence based on no evidence what-so-ever. Well done.
No. Either work can be done effectively electronically or on phone, or not.
Attacks on health service workers are not unknown either, this was our ED in 2018:
I think the key point here is that doctors are not terrorist targets, in the way that MP's perhaps are.
I am a bit concerned the public sector have got too comfortable with teams and zoom. My son's parents evening is on teams - I don't see why that needs to be the case and would prefer it to be in person. I was speaking to a planning officer in a major northern city last week and he said that he hasn't done a single site visit in a year; large planning applications are being decided on the basis of streetview. Some medical consultations can be done over the phone, but a large proportion of examinations must surely be done in person.
Meeting people is practically a luxury now. I've certainly taken advantage of Teams but it really is different interacting with people face to face, and most sectors should be wary of just looking at how convenient it is for themselves. As it may be convenient for many others too, but you need to consider those for whom it isnt and put them first sometimes.
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
To be fair to Ms Slater that's pre yesterday's events.
But it's par for the course for the sesspit that is Scottish politics. It's such a shame 45pc vote for such devisive left wing nationalism.
Holy shit she actually tweeted that Today??
PB ain't got shit compared to SNP types
Do London buses still put a bus seat in the lane behind them to show they are broken down? Because I think your outrage bus needs an equivalent indicator. What are you on about?
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
Err, no. I am saying that Ellwood is wrong, MPs surgeries should not go online either.
Incidentally, such invective against GPs is why so many are burnt out and quitting. We have losr nearly 2000 WTE in the last few years, and proclamations by the government of 11 000 more have just been the usual cant.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
Err, no. I am saying that Ellwood is wrong, MPs surgeries should not go online either.
Fair enough. I agree with that, just wonder how they will ramp up security.
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
To be fair to Ms Slater that's pre yesterday's events.
But it's par for the course for the sesspit that is Scottish politics. It's such a shame 45pc vote for such devisive left wing nationalism.
Holy shit she actually tweeted that Today??
PB ain't got shit compared to SNP types
Do London buses still put a bus seat in the lane behind them to show they are broken down? Because I think your outrage bus needs an equivalent indicator. What are you on about?
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
With my mil, she used to do weekends, nights and home visits - and this in the time of the Yorkshire ripper. The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
To be fair to Ms Slater that's pre yesterday's events.
She tweeted her remarks 1 hour ago.
Yes - I got confused again. I'll hopefully stop make school boy errors so frequently.
TBF, she starts lots of posts with the words ‘This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why…’ before making some random point. As she did on one yesterday, and this one today.
Even by the very low standards of the Scottish Greens she’s spectacularly tin-eared.
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
Nice sentiments, but you might like to share them with Angela Rayner, who clearly wouldn't want to live next door to one of those Tories....
You've been banging on about Rayner's foolish comments for the last 20 hours. You clearly feel you can score political points by doing so. It is very disrespectful to Mr Amess.
Just watching Johnson and Starmer together in Leigh-on-Sea. That is a much better look than your constant trolling.
Its not trolling. Rayner's comment is just the sort of disrespectful comment that needs to be stopped.
How should it be stopped? Make it illegal to call tory ministers scum?
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
@ Nick Palmer The superimposition of generalised or supposed characteristics of a group onto an individual is discrimination. In almost any sotuation it is unacceptable. As you say it is only a small stones throw away from racism.
Some level of generalisation about groups of people is necessary to have productive discourse. Otherwise you can never make any meaningful comment about the direction that society is taking, and the challenges faced by groups within it. Belief that everything is transcended by the individual can lead to bad conclusions - for instance you could conclude that there is no problem with religious extremism; there are just bad people. This would obviously be an error.
Humans organise themselves in to groups, and these groups are often characterised by shared ideas and values. This is objective reality, and has been the case forever.
Yes, well, generalisation about generalisations is also risky . But two points:
1. Generalising about accidents of birth (being black or Paraguayan or whatever) is several degrees stupider than generalising about a group that people choose to join as adults. Sometimes upbringing and childhood environment will be important, but not simply nationality or colour, and people often grow away from their upbringing anyway.
2. Even with groups that people voluntarily join as adults, assumptions that you might reasonably make should only be a starting point in looking at an individual. BigG and HYUFD have generally been Conservatives most of their lives, but it's probably difficult to say much that is true of both of them. In Britain in particular, shared groups like these are broad churches and include a multitude of very different people.
And yet it is often those on the left who are the most eager to apply group labels:
'The LGBT+ Community' 'The BAME Community' 'The Muslim Community'
This is turning discreet individuals into a homogeneous mass.
And this use of the word 'Community' really gets to me. We have a local community where I live. The people here are one community. Not divided by race, religion, sexuality, gender or anything else.
I jokingly ask my wife 'What does the BAME Community think about XYZ?' Just to illustrate the nonsense of it.
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
Nice sentiments, but you might like to share them with Angela Rayner, who clearly wouldn't want to live next door to one of those Tories....
You've been banging on about Rayner's foolish comments for the last 20 hours. You clearly feel you can score political points by doing so. It is very disrespectful to Mr Amess.
Just watching Johnson and Starmer together in Leigh-on-Sea. That is a much better look than your constant trolling.
Its not trolling. Rayner's comment is just the sort of disrespectful comment that needs to be stopped.
How should it be stopped? Make it illegal to call tory ministers scum?
I have nothing to say that others haven't said far better here this morning. I'm still sad about David Amess and the events of yesterday, on top of what happened to James Brokenshire the week before. There is too much injustice in this world.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
With my mil, she used to do weekends, nights and home visits - and this in the time of the Yorkshire ripper. The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
Indeed. I think we need to get rid of the concept of the GP surgery and having a named or family doctor. That gives GPs so much more power. Put them all in 20 doctor walk in centres and they get the next person on the list. Dump the idea of appointments as well, people walk up and wait to be seen. With enough doctors turnover of patients will always be high enough that people won't wait too long.
There has to be a by-election yes. When Jo Cox was murdered the other parties stood aside, be decent if the same happened this time.
Though when a Tory MP was murdered by the IRA the Lib Dems (I think from memory?) fought and won the following by-election.
You can argue both ways - that terrorists shouldn't win by having a change in MP party because of terrorism, or that we elect individuals and terrorists shouldn't win by making us set aside democratic traditions.
The deceased MP's party traditionally 'moves the writ' for the by-election. So that would be the Conservatives this time.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
It stinks.
Compared with most other professions of comparable pay, GPs are idle.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
@ Nick Palmer The superimposition of generalised or supposed characteristics of a group onto an individual is discrimination. In almost any sotuation it is unacceptable. As you say it is only a small stones throw away from racism.
Some level of generalisation about groups of people is necessary to have productive discourse. Otherwise you can never make any meaningful comment about the direction that society is taking, and the challenges faced by groups within it. Belief that everything is transcended by the individual can lead to bad conclusions - for instance you could conclude that there is no problem with religious extremism; there are just bad people. This would obviously be an error.
Humans organise themselves in to groups, and these groups are often characterised by shared ideas and values. This is objective reality, and has been the case forever.
Yes, well, generalisation about generalisations is also risky . But two points:
1. Generalising about accidents of birth (being black or Paraguayan or whatever) is several degrees stupider than generalising about a group that people choose to join as adults. Sometimes upbringing and childhood environment will be important, but not simply nationality or colour, and people often grow away from their upbringing anyway.
2. Even with groups that people voluntarily join as adults, assumptions that you might reasonably make should only be a starting point in looking at an individual. BigG and HYUFD have generally been Conservatives most of their lives, but it's probably difficult to say much that is true of both of them. In Britain in particular, shared groups like these are broad churches and include a multitude of very different people.
And this use of the word 'Community' really gets to me.
That began iirc with the police. They didn't want to speak about 'Blacks' or 'Asians' as if they were one homogenous unit with the implication that they were crime-ridden so they introduced the euphemism 'community'. It then spread as a general way of talking about a group of people without using the politically incorrect terms.
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
Nice sentiments, but you might like to share them with Angela Rayner, who clearly wouldn't want to live next door to one of those Tories....
You've been banging on about Rayner's foolish comments for the last 20 hours. You clearly feel you can score political points by doing so. It is very disrespectful to Mr Amess.
Just watching Johnson and Starmer together in Leigh-on-Sea. That is a much better look than your constant trolling.
Its not trolling. Rayner's comment is just the sort of disrespectful comment that needs to be stopped.
How should it be stopped? Make it illegal to call tory ministers scum?
I seem to recall the late Aneurin Bevan saying that, as far as he was concerned some at least Tories were 'lower than vermin'. Bearing in mind that the local mining company wouldn't employ him because of his views, one could understand it.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
@ Nick Palmer The superimposition of generalised or supposed characteristics of a group onto an individual is discrimination. In almost any sotuation it is unacceptable. As you say it is only a small stones throw away from racism.
Some level of generalisation about groups of people is necessary to have productive discourse. Otherwise you can never make any meaningful comment about the direction that society is taking, and the challenges faced by groups within it. Belief that everything is transcended by the individual can lead to bad conclusions - for instance you could conclude that there is no problem with religious extremism; there are just bad people. This would obviously be an error.
Humans organise themselves in to groups, and these groups are often characterised by shared ideas and values. This is objective reality, and has been the case forever.
Yes, well, generalisation about generalisations is also risky . But two points:
1. Generalising about accidents of birth (being black or Paraguayan or whatever) is several degrees stupider than generalising about a group that people choose to join as adults. Sometimes upbringing and childhood environment will be important, but not simply nationality or colour, and people often grow away from their upbringing anyway.
2. Even with groups that people voluntarily join as adults, assumptions that you might reasonably make should only be a starting point in looking at an individual. BigG and HYUFD have generally been Conservatives most of their lives, but it's probably difficult to say much that is true of both of them. In Britain in particular, shared groups like these are broad churches and include a multitude of very different people.
And yet it is often those on the left who are the most eager to apply group labels:
'The LGBT+ Community' 'The BAME Community' 'The Muslim Community'
This is turning discreet individuals into a homogeneous mass.
And this use of the word 'Community' really gets to me. We have a local community where I live. The people here are one community. Not divided by race, religion, sexuality, gender or anything else.
I jokingly ask my wife 'What does the BAME Community think about XYZ?' Just to illustrate the nonsense of it.
Not a fan of the word. On one hand no reason people should not celebrate or focus on their personal qualities which connect them with specific others, but overuse of community makes me feel we hyperfocus on differences as if they are what matter above all not our similarities. And while people belong to many communities overlapping, the word makes me think of pushing communities to be separate. Person from X community cannot speak for y community even though both are part of z.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
With my mil, she used to do weekends, nights and home visits - and this in the time of the Yorkshire ripper. The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
Indeed. I think we need to get rid of the concept of the GP surgery and having a named or family doctor. That gives GPs so much more power. Put them all in 20 doctor walk in centres and they get the next person on the list. Dump the idea of appointments as well, people walk up and wait to be seen. With enough doctors turnover of patients will always be high enough that people won't wait too long.
Named family doctors ended with the Lansley reforms years ago. Patients are now registered to a practice.
Increasingly practices are amalgamating into super practices. Lakeside in my area has 200 doctors on the books.
We have chucked the baby out with the bathwater though, with loss of continuity and personal care.
There has to be a by-election yes. When Jo Cox was murdered the other parties stood aside, be decent if the same happened this time.
Though when a Tory MP was murdered by the IRA the Lib Dems (I think from memory?) fought and won the following by-election.
You can argue both ways - that terrorists shouldn't win by having a change in MP party because of terrorism, or that we elect individuals and terrorists shouldn't win by making us set aside democratic traditions.
The deceased MP's party traditionally 'moves the writ' for the by-election. So that would be the Conservatives this time.
I dont personally have a problem with major parties standing. But I suspect if Eastbourne happened today the LDs would not stand.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
Err, no. I am saying that Ellwood is wrong, MPs surgeries should not go online either.
Fair enough. I agree with that, just wonder how they will ramp up security.
What would it cost to have a bouncer for each MP surgery?
Back of the envelope, 650 x £15ph * 8hrs * 50 weeks is approx £4m, add in a million for admin, could be done for £5m which is irrelevant in the big scheme of things. Sadly, not sure if that would displace such attacks to other venues/people or stop them, probably a mix of the two.
There has to be a by-election yes. When Jo Cox was murdered the other parties stood aside, be decent if the same happened this time.
Though when a Tory MP was murdered by the IRA the Lib Dems (I think from memory?) fought and won the following by-election.
You can argue both ways - that terrorists shouldn't win by having a change in MP party because of terrorism, or that we elect individuals and terrorists shouldn't win by making us set aside democratic traditions.
The deceased MP's party traditionally 'moves the writ' for the by-election. So that would be the Conservatives this time.
I dont personally have a problem with major parties standing. But I suspect if Eastbourne happened today the LDs would not stand.
Personally think the opposition should stand aside.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
@ Nick Palmer The superimposition of generalised or supposed characteristics of a group onto an individual is discrimination. In almost any sotuation it is unacceptable. As you say it is only a small stones throw away from racism.
Some level of generalisation about groups of people is necessary to have productive discourse. Otherwise you can never make any meaningful comment about the direction that society is taking, and the challenges faced by groups within it. Belief that everything is transcended by the individual can lead to bad conclusions - for instance you could conclude that there is no problem with religious extremism; there are just bad people. This would obviously be an error.
Humans organise themselves in to groups, and these groups are often characterised by shared ideas and values. This is objective reality, and has been the case forever.
Yes, well, generalisation about generalisations is also risky . But two points:
1. Generalising about accidents of birth (being black or Paraguayan or whatever) is several degrees stupider than generalising about a group that people choose to join as adults. Sometimes upbringing and childhood environment will be important, but not simply nationality or colour, and people often grow away from their upbringing anyway.
2. Even with groups that people voluntarily join as adults, assumptions that you might reasonably make should only be a starting point in looking at an individual. BigG and HYUFD have generally been Conservatives most of their lives, but it's probably difficult to say much that is true of both of them. In Britain in particular, shared groups like these are broad churches and include a multitude of very different people.
And yet it is often those on the left who are the most eager to apply group labels:
'The LGBT+ Community' 'The BAME Community' 'The Muslim Community'
This is turning discreet individuals into a homogeneous mass.
And this use of the word 'Community' really gets to me. We have a local community where I live. The people here are one community. Not divided by race, religion, sexuality, gender or anything else.
I jokingly ask my wife 'What does the BAME Community think about XYZ?' Just to illustrate the nonsense of it.
The word community really is inappropriate most of the time it is used. The one that gets me frustrated is the self-appointed and unelected "community leaders".
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
Nice sentiments, but you might like to share them with Angela Rayner, who clearly wouldn't want to live next door to one of those Tories....
You've been banging on about Rayner's foolish comments for the last 20 hours. You clearly feel you can score political points by doing so. It is very disrespectful to Mr Amess.
Just watching Johnson and Starmer together in Leigh-on-Sea. That is a much better look than your constant trolling.
Its not trolling. Rayner's comment is just the sort of disrespectful comment that needs to be stopped.
How should it be stopped? Make it illegal to call tory ministers scum?
We already have laws on hate speech. We don’t need any more. Rayner and her comments have not helped but you cannot police peoples words done to the nth degree.
The only way it can be stopped is if these people making idiotic comments dial back the rhetoric,
I’d be shocked if Lab/LD/Greens contested the seat. I actually think SKS would rather not have the OB&S by-election to fight as I think the downside risk (coming third) there is greater than the chance to get a win or come close for that matter.
So even if he wasn’t inclined to do the decent thing (I’m sure he is), SKS wouldn’t want to fight another by-election that could expose his weakness.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
With my mil, she used to do weekends, nights and home visits - and this in the time of the Yorkshire ripper. The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
Indeed. I think we need to get rid of the concept of the GP surgery and having a named or family doctor. That gives GPs so much more power. Put them all in 20 doctor walk in centres and they get the next person on the list. Dump the idea of appointments as well, people walk up and wait to be seen. With enough doctors turnover of patients will always be high enough that people won't wait too long.
Named family doctors ended with the Lansley reforms years ago. Patients are now registered to a practice.
Increasingly practices are amalgamating into super practices. Lakeside in my area has 200 doctors on the books.
We have chucked the baby out with the bathwater though, with loss of continuity and personal care.
And as I understand it there are practices which are 'owned' by commercial companies, who employ the relevant professionals. Which might in some cases be a good idea. GP's were not necessarily good managers of businesses.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
With my mil, she used to do weekends, nights and home visits - and this in the time of the Yorkshire ripper. The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
Indeed. I think we need to get rid of the concept of the GP surgery and having a named or family doctor. That gives GPs so much more power. Put them all in 20 doctor walk in centres and they get the next person on the list. Dump the idea of appointments as well, people walk up and wait to be seen. With enough doctors turnover of patients will always be high enough that people won't wait too long.
Reality is we don't have enough GPs. Changing the queueing systems is tinkering at the edges, and having a load of infectious people waiting in a room with a load of vulnerable people was always a crazy idea.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
With my mil, she used to do weekends, nights and home visits - and this in the time of the Yorkshire ripper. The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
Indeed. I think we need to get rid of the concept of the GP surgery and having a named or family doctor. That gives GPs so much more power. Put them all in 20 doctor walk in centres and they get the next person on the list. Dump the idea of appointments as well, people walk up and wait to be seen. With enough doctors turnover of patients will always be high enough that people won't wait too long.
Named family doctors ended with the Lansley reforms years ago. Patients are now registered to a practice.
Increasingly practices are amalgamating into super practices. Lakeside in my area has 200 doctors on the books.
We have chucked the baby out with the bathwater though, with loss of continuity and personal care.
GPs became walking, talking prescription writers and now the nation is adjusting to that. I think most people realise to get any actually real diagnosis you have to go to A&E for the hospital doctor to take a look. Another one that irks me is the three times a GP missed my grandmother's gum cancer despite knowing her history as an ex-smoker. It was only when my granddad took her to see a family friend who is a consultant dentist that it got spotted, months after the first GP appointment. That was 25 years ago (sadly she died a year later because the cancer spread into her lymphatic system), the GP just existed to write prescriptions and make patients go away for a while. If anything it's got worse since then.
Mr. Above, I respectfully disagree. The democratic process should take place, and the electorate should have a choice.
They could at the next GE, or they could stand as or support an independent here. But I think it would be wrong of other main parties to try and profit from a murder, and if they do stand it is hard for them to campaign as they normally would anyway. The outcome won't be reflective either as many will vote for the Tories here, not because they support the Tories but because they think similarly to me.
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
Nice sentiments, but you might like to share them with Angela Rayner, who clearly wouldn't want to live next door to one of those Tories....
You've been banging on about Rayner's foolish comments for the last 20 hours. You clearly feel you can score political points by doing so. It is very disrespectful to Mr Amess.
Just watching Johnson and Starmer together in Leigh-on-Sea. That is a much better look than your constant trolling.
Its not trolling. Rayner's comment is just the sort of disrespectful comment that needs to be stopped.
How should it be stopped? Make it illegal to call tory ministers scum?
We already have laws on hate speech. We don’t need any more. Rayner and her comments have not helped but you cannot police peoples words done to the nth degree.
The only way it can be stopped is if these people making idiotic comments dial back the rhetoric,
And the main way that will happen is if we, as voters, punish the worst over-the-top rhetoric by not voting for people who express it and switching off when media broadcast it.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
With my mil, she used to do weekends, nights and home visits - and this in the time of the Yorkshire ripper. The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
Indeed. I think we need to get rid of the concept of the GP surgery and having a named or family doctor. That gives GPs so much more power. Put them all in 20 doctor walk in centres and they get the next person on the list. Dump the idea of appointments as well, people walk up and wait to be seen. With enough doctors turnover of patients will always be high enough that people won't wait too long.
Named family doctors ended with the Lansley reforms years ago. Patients are now registered to a practice.
Increasingly practices are amalgamating into super practices. Lakeside in my area has 200 doctors on the books.
We have chucked the baby out with the bathwater though, with loss of continuity and personal care.
There's a paper from a year or two back showing reduced A&E visits with greater consistency in GP seen for children with chronic conditions.
Qualitative research also shows the importance of continuity for chronic conditions.
Less important for ad hoc health visits though. I see the GP very infrequently and I don't know the name of 'my' GP.
Mr. Above, I respectfully disagree. The democratic process should take place, and the electorate should have a choice.
For me it depends why the by-election is taking place.
If its due to natural causes like cancer, heart attack etc then yes it should take place and the electorate should have a choice. Deaths from natural causes are tragic, but nobody deliberately caused that.
If someone caused the by election by attacking and killing the MP because they dislike that MPs politics, then that shouldn't be 'rewarded' having a contested by-election where the murderer can get what he sought.
Dr. Foxy, is that a fair criticism? MPs don't need to conduct medical examinations, and I'm not aware of two GPs being murdered recently.
I could believe GPs are sadly attacked quite a bit but I dont know the figures on that, but the comparison just makes no sense to me as an attempt to imply a kind of hypocrisy.
The reality is that attacks on public servants, from verbal to fatal occur across a range of settings, health care, social work, police, prisons, MPs, indeed wherever workers and public meet.
There are increased cases of abuse and physical threat to NHS staff since the government stoked up anger at GPs over face to face contacts.
Maybe, just maybe, the bloody GPs should take in person appointments and stop pushing everyone to phone triage. My friend's wife had a potentially fatal case of sepsis and the GP refused to see her in person and tried to get her to describe the rash over the phone. It was only when one of our other friends told her to drop everything and go to A&E immediately that she got life saving treatment.
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
With my mil, she used to do weekends, nights and home visits - and this in the time of the Yorkshire ripper. The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
Indeed. I think we need to get rid of the concept of the GP surgery and having a named or family doctor. That gives GPs so much more power. Put them all in 20 doctor walk in centres and they get the next person on the list. Dump the idea of appointments as well, people walk up and wait to be seen. With enough doctors turnover of patients will always be high enough that people won't wait too long.
Named family doctors ended with the Lansley reforms years ago. Patients are now registered to a practice.
Increasingly practices are amalgamating into super practices. Lakeside in my area has 200 doctors on the books.
We have chucked the baby out with the bathwater though, with loss of continuity and personal care.
GPs became walking, talking prescription writers and now the nation is adjusting to that. I think most people realise to get any actually real diagnosis you have to go to A&E for the hospital doctor to take a look. Another one that irks me is the three times a GP missed my grandmother's gum cancer despite knowing her history as an ex-smoker. It was only when my granddad took her to see a family friend who is a consultant dentist that it got spotted, months after the first GP appointment. That was 25 years ago (sadly she died a year later because the cancer spread into her lymphatic system), the GP just existed to write prescriptions and make patients go away for a while. If anything it's got worse since then.
A couple of years ago now I was feeling pretty grotty in a non specific way. I went to see my GP who listened to my somewhat incoherent tale and then really looked at me. He said, "you're never here, I think we need to investigate this further". A few days later when the bloods etc came back I received a message to leave my court case and go to Casualty without passing go. It turned out that I had clots on my lungs and a pulmonary embolism. I genuinely do not think it is over dramatic to say that GP saved my life.
Two points from this anecdote. Firstly, this would almost certainly not have happened had I consulted him by phone. Secondly, although GPs can get ground down by the 10 minute interview mainly for chronic conditions about which they can generally do little, especially as the patient does so little to help themselves, there are many exceptional doctors out there doing their very best.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
@ Nick Palmer The superimposition of generalised or supposed characteristics of a group onto an individual is discrimination. In almost any sotuation it is unacceptable. As you say it is only a small stones throw away from racism.
Some level of generalisation about groups of people is necessary to have productive discourse. Otherwise you can never make any meaningful comment about the direction that society is taking, and the challenges faced by groups within it. Belief that everything is transcended by the individual can lead to bad conclusions - for instance you could conclude that there is no problem with religious extremism; there are just bad people. This would obviously be an error.
Humans organise themselves in to groups, and these groups are often characterised by shared ideas and values. This is objective reality, and has been the case forever.
Yes, well, generalisation about generalisations is also risky . But two points:
1. Generalising about accidents of birth (being black or Paraguayan or whatever) is several degrees stupider than generalising about a group that people choose to join as adults. Sometimes upbringing and childhood environment will be important, but not simply nationality or colour, and people often grow away from their upbringing anyway.
2. Even with groups that people voluntarily join as adults, assumptions that you might reasonably make should only be a starting point in looking at an individual. BigG and HYUFD have generally been Conservatives most of their lives, but it's probably difficult to say much that is true of both of them. In Britain in particular, shared groups like these are broad churches and include a multitude of very different people.
And yet it is often those on the left who are the most eager to apply group labels:
'The LGBT+ Community' 'The BAME Community' 'The Muslim Community'
This is turning discreet individuals into a homogeneous mass.
And this use of the word 'Community' really gets to me. We have a local community where I live. The people here are one community. Not divided by race, religion, sexuality, gender or anything else.
I jokingly ask my wife 'What does the BAME Community think about XYZ?' Just to illustrate the nonsense of it.
There are so many aspects of this. A long time ago, I knew a lesbian who used to say she hated lesbians: not through some odd self-hatred, but because to be part of the lesbian groups, she had to act and look in certain ways. Instead of this, she wanted to be a lesbian and look like a girl: which got her some stick and insults from 'proper' lesbians. IIRC she was called a 'porno' lesbian - by another lesbian. She wanted to be in the group, but felt alienated from it.
Much more unites most of us than divides us: I remember going to a McD beside work one day with a TS friend to talk about his job, which he was unhappy about. We chatted about work, rent, his poorly cat etc. The vast majority of my conversations with both my good TS friends were similar: about everyday events that can occur to all of us. The fact they were, or wanted, to be TS rarely cropped up. It was mostly an irrelevance.
The problem is, if you are in a small group, you can gain comfort and safety within that group. Therefore it is fully understandable that people within groups congregate together - whether by gender orientation, religion, political viewpoint etc. This is particularly true of small or marginalised groups.
I think a problem can occur when people see the few things that divide them - or keep them in the group - as being more important than those that unite them with everyone else, and use those differences to define themselves. Or when people outside see differences in others, and use those to either stereotype or demean that group, as if the actions of one or two count for all of them. This actually encourages those within the group to batten down the hatches and gain safety within their groups.
There are a whole load more complexities to this, but I think that's a good start on my views.
There has to be a by-election yes. When Jo Cox was murdered the other parties stood aside, be decent if the same happened this time.
Though when a Tory MP was murdered by the IRA the Lib Dems (I think from memory?) fought and won the following by-election.
You can argue both ways - that terrorists shouldn't win by having a change in MP party because of terrorism, or that we elect individuals and terrorists shouldn't win by making us set aside democratic traditions.
The deceased MP's party traditionally 'moves the writ' for the by-election. So that would be the Conservatives this time.
I dont personally have a problem with major parties standing. But I suspect if Eastbourne happened today the LDs would not stand.
Personally think the opposition should stand aside.
No, it should be contested, after a decent interval. Safe Tory hold IMO.
The Batley and Spen by-election just left the field to assorted freaks.
On that ludicrous "Omigod Windmills are *SO* Large" piece from the BBC yesterday, trying to wow people with hoe miraculous normal technical processes are (Arts Degrees and the Media...), I liked this bit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58704792
Wind turbines do have some negative effects on wildlife but the extent of this, at scale, is difficult to measure. Plus, very large wind farms at sea must be sited carefully to avoid conflict with shipping lanes.
Unless you are French and the sea route you are blocking is from Zeebrugge to the UK
Optopian @ImBuddhish · 21h School run, 8 yr old son happily pipes up from back "Today I am tresbian." A very unexpected modern parenting moment looms "What does that mean to you?" "It means I'm happy" "Ah that's nice. So what exactly were you learning?" "French, I am tresbian." "Ok, so the 's' is silent."
Also worth noting that the Independent front page says the police are treating this as a "likely Islamist terror attack" - with possible mental health issues associated - so it is really a bit harsh to critique HYUFD for speculating similarly, and as to what it might imply
The Netherlands is also "securing" its democracy in a sad fashion, in the face of similar violent threats
If @HYFUD is getting criticism, he shouldn’t because we all know where this is going - radical Islamist with the usual comments of “mental health issues’ (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting to those with true mental health issues). It was the same in the Reading attack where three gay guys were killed and the pattern of excuses seem similar - in the initial phase, blame it on mental health issues and then, only when the shock of the original attack has lessened, then admit it’s terrorism.
We don't know any of this.
A few years ago in Birmingham (I think) there was quite a big police raid on a number of houses and various Muslim men were arrested. It was said to be a big terror investigation. The men were all released, without charge, and it turned out that there was nothing to it at all - at least not publicly.
Until we know the facts it is unseemly for @HYUFD (or anyone else) to start making political points about immigration. We have no idea whether this person was born here, came here as a baby or a year ago. The facts will come out soon enough I expect.
The poor man is not even in his grave. His wife and 5 children and other family members and friends are mourning him. A bit of common decency - of which thankfully there has been plenty shown on here - is not Amess-worship or shutting down debate. It is just pausing to reflect on the very human sorrow people are feeling at the loss of someone who tried in his own way to make the world a little bit better.
I’m sorry @Cyclefree on this - and I agree with you on a lot on things - I think that’s wrong. When is appropriate? When he’s buried? Six months down the line? When?
In any event, it’s the hypocrisy that is the most galling. When jo Cox killed, there was plenty of people on here who rushed in on here to say it was about Brexit, it was right wing terrorism etc, that we should stamp down on hate etc etc who now proclaim how we must not rush to judgement, let the facts come out etc.
We're free to speculate now, of course.
But we should also acknowledge that - in quite a number of cases - the actual perpetrators / motives weren't who we initially thought.
In about 48 hours, when a lot more information will have been released, we'll have a pretty good handle of what happened, and why it happened.
It may be that he was a Jihadi (although Amess wasn't even a member of the friends of Israel or anything like that that might have brought attention to himself). It may be that the application for his wife to come join him was rejected by the Home Office, and he blamed David Amess for this. It may be that he has been in and out of mental institutions. It may even be that he was a deranged Remainer who wanted to kill a long time Eurosceptic MP. It may be that he was locally radicalised. Or it may be that he wasn't religious at all.
All that is very true and - I’ll say it in advance - that, if any of these cases are true, I was wrong and I should not have assumed as I did.
However, as said, for me it is the hypocrisy that is the most galling. The same people who rushed to pass judgement on Jo Cox’s killer right after the event are now claiming it is indecent to do in this case. Sorry, same standards should apply - either don’t speculate at all, regardless of the political circumstances, or allow people to speculate.
“Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
Good quote. Who?
George W Bush.
Interesting. From all accounts GWB was a smart guy, consistently under-estimated by opponents as some slow old over-privileged cowpoke, allowing him to beat them time and again, A redneck version of Boris
He got played by Cheney and Rummie. A disastrous presidency but probably not a bad person, just massively out of his depth, swimming with sharks. I don't see the comparison with Johnson to be honest - weirdly, I think it's insulting to both of them.
Iraq is now ironically a democracy with Saddam no more.
Afghanistan was still largely Taliban free when he left office and there were no further terror attacks on US soil after 9/11 on his watch.
He also avoided the collapse of the US economy in 2008 in the GFC.
Bush's legacy looks a lot better now than it did then given what has occurred since
Iraq is rated "not free" in the Freedom in the World assessment and an "authoritarian regime" in the EIU's Democracy Index.
The worst terrorist attack in US history happened on GWB's watch, after his administration ignored several warning signs.
The mismanagement of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy by his administration massively accelerated the financial crisis. The economy was in free fall when he left office.
Iraq is now a democracy with an elected President and Parliament and free of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
It was Bill Clinton who let Al Qaeda foster under Bin Laden, merely lobbing a few token missiles at his camps even after the earlier WTC attack in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole. Bush however ensured there were no further terror attacks on US soil on his watch after 9/11.
Most House Republicans voted against bailing out any banks at all, Bush allowed Lehmans to be sacrificed to save the rest and prevent the whole US economy going under
Political discourse on all sides, partly fuelled by social media, has become coarsened, and abuse is more widespread, although nothing new. Whether it's calling Tories scum, or referring to 'remoaners' as traitors and quislings, it's not particularly healthy. There has been poor behaviour, and some intimidation, on both sides. It's not great, but it hasn't resulted in much actual violence, let alone serious violence. Whatever people say, there is a difference between throwing a milk shake at somebody, or intimidating Chris Whitty, and stabbing somebody to death.
So I'd argue that the connection between this discourse and yesterday's events is slender, if it exists at all. According to MI5 and everybody else involved in counter-terrorism, the threat of terror now is dominated by two groups: extremist Islamic fundamentalists, and the extreme far right. A cursory scan through convictions for terrorism and planning for terrorism demonstrate this to be the case. In the case of the murder of two MPs, this seems to fit (yes, I know we do not know enough yet about yesterday's events).
People may feel better trying to find blame. But the blame belongs entirely to the psychopaths (often mentally disturbed) who do the deeds, and those who enlist them to do the dirty work of the extreme Islamists or the modern-day fascists. Nobody else.
Also worth noting that the Independent front page says the police are treating this as a "likely Islamist terror attack" - with possible mental health issues associated - so it is really a bit harsh to critique HYUFD for speculating similarly, and as to what it might imply
The Netherlands is also "securing" its democracy in a sad fashion, in the face of similar violent threats
If @HYFUD is getting criticism, he shouldn’t because we all know where this is going - radical Islamist with the usual comments of “mental health issues’ (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting to those with true mental health issues). It was the same in the Reading attack where three gay guys were killed and the pattern of excuses seem similar - in the initial phase, blame it on mental health issues and then, only when the shock of the original attack has lessened, then admit it’s terrorism.
We don't know any of this.
A few years ago in Birmingham (I think) there was quite a big police raid on a number of houses and various Muslim men were arrested. It was said to be a big terror investigation. The men were all released, without charge, and it turned out that there was nothing to it at all - at least not publicly.
Until we know the facts it is unseemly for @HYUFD (or anyone else) to start making political points about immigration. We have no idea whether this person was born here, came here as a baby or a year ago. The facts will come out soon enough I expect.
The poor man is not even in his grave. His wife and 5 children and other family members and friends are mourning him. A bit of common decency - of which thankfully there has been plenty shown on here - is not Amess-worship or shutting down debate. It is just pausing to reflect on the very human sorrow people are feeling at the loss of someone who tried in his own way to make the world a little bit better.
I’m sorry @Cyclefree on this - and I agree with you on a lot on things - I think that’s wrong. When is appropriate? When he’s buried? Six months down the line? When?
In any event, it’s the hypocrisy that is the most galling. When jo Cox killed, there was plenty of people on here who rushed in on here to say it was about Brexit, it was right wing terrorism etc, that we should stamp down on hate etc etc who now proclaim how we must not rush to judgement, let the facts come out etc.
We're free to speculate now, of course.
But we should also acknowledge that - in quite a number of cases - the actual perpetrators / motives weren't who we initially thought.
In about 48 hours, when a lot more information will have been released, we'll have a pretty good handle of what happened, and why it happened.
It may be that he was a Jihadi (although Amess wasn't even a member of the friends of Israel or anything like that that might have brought attention to himself). It may be that the application for his wife to come join him was rejected by the Home Office, and he blamed David Amess for this. It may be that he has been in and out of mental institutions. It may even be that he was a deranged Remainer who wanted to kill a long time Eurosceptic MP. It may be that he was locally radicalised. Or it may be that he wasn't religious at all.
All that is very true and - I’ll say it in advance - that, if any of these cases are true, I was wrong and I should not have assumed as I did.
However, as said, for me it is the hypocrisy that is the most galling. The same people who rushed to pass judgement on Jo Cox’s killer right after the event are now claiming it is indecent to do in this case. Sorry, same standards should apply - either don’t speculate at all, regardless of the political circumstances, or allow people to speculate.
“Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
Good quote. Who?
George W Bush.
Interesting. From all accounts GWB was a smart guy, consistently under-estimated by opponents as some slow old over-privileged cowpoke, allowing him to beat them time and again, A redneck version of Boris
He got played by Cheney and Rummie. A disastrous presidency but probably not a bad person, just massively out of his depth, swimming with sharks. I don't see the comparison with Johnson to be honest - weirdly, I think it's insulting to both of them.
Iraq is now ironically a democracy with Saddam no more.
Afghanistan was still largely Taliban free when he left office and there were no further terror attacks on US soil after 9/11 on his watch.
He also avoided the collapse of the US economy in 2008 in the GFC.
Bush's legacy looks a lot better now than it did then given what has occurred since
Iraq is rated "not free" in the Freedom in the World assessment and an "authoritarian regime" in the EIU's Democracy Index.
The worst terrorist attack in US history happened on GWB's watch, after his administration ignored several warning signs.
The mismanagement of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy by his administration massively accelerated the financial crisis. The economy was in free fall when he left office.
Iraq is now a democracy with an elected President and Parliament and free of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
It was Bill Clinton who let Al Qaeda foster under Bin Laden, merely lobbing a few token missiles at his camps even after the earlier WTC attack in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole. Bush however ensured there were no further terror attacks on US soil on his watch after 9/11.
Most House Republicans voted against bailing out any banks at all, Bush allowed Lehmans to be sacrificed to save the rest and prevent the whole US economy going under
If you really believe the implication of your first sentence I know someone who has a bridge to sell. I don't see how anyone can compare a democracy such the Republic of Ireland with Iraq.
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
Nice sentiments, but you might like to share them with Angela Rayner, who clearly wouldn't want to live next door to one of those Tories....
You've been banging on about Rayner's foolish comments for the last 20 hours. You clearly feel you can score political points by doing so. It is very disrespectful to Mr Amess.
Just watching Johnson and Starmer together in Leigh-on-Sea. That is a much better look than your constant trolling.
Its not trolling. Rayner's comment is just the sort of disrespectful comment that needs to be stopped.
How should it be stopped? Make it illegal to call tory ministers scum?
It's kind of sad that it is only at terrible times like these that we learn of the close cross-party friendships and levels of cooperation that exist in Parliament.
To be fair to him our very own @NickPalmer has always made a point of crediting politicians from other parties and having friendships with them. It is very much to his credit.
People may feel better trying to find blame. But the blame belongs entirely to the psychopaths (often mentally disturbed) who do the deeds, and those who enlist them to do the dirty work of the extreme Islamists or the modern-day fascists. Nobody else.
This is the problematic part of your argument.
Was Donald Trump responsible for the events of January 6th, for example?
You can't divorce the acts, or the actors, from the current climate of public political debate.
This comment from a former MP who was also harassed seems apposite
Extremism may take many names and embrace many causes - Far Right, supremacist, Islamist... but extremism is always the same. It is the same cancer that eats out people's minds. ...And usually pushed by a someone quietly making money & power from the rot. https://twitter.com/CharlotteLeslie/status/1449304044456005632
There's a huge amount of aggression around at the moment. You can see it everywhere particularly on the roads. I noticed it when I came back from France where the mood was completely different. I'd put it down to the aftermath of the pandemic but I'm not so sure. There are just a lot of angry people. I'm sure the mood has nothing to do with this incident which I imagine is the work of a schizophrenic but it makes the country a less than pleasant place to be in.
Fuck these Muslim terrorists. There’s something rotten at the heart of Islam.
I’m quite happy to live alongside the liberal, tolerant Muslims, but they’re the minority.
We’ve got a fucking problem.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right
I went to school at Biddenham Upper School in Bedford. It was about 70% Muslim, so you didn't really have a whole bunch of choice about having Muslim friends or not.
Mostly, I learned that Muslims are human beings. They argue with their parents. They bitch about homework. They apply for the same jobs that you or I do. They watch the same movies and TV. They support the same sports teams.
In work, I was also lucky enough to find myself sitting opposite a guy I now call one of my very best friends. A Muslim of Persian heritage who - it is fair to say - hates the Iranian regime more than even Donald Trump. He's married to an Irish Catholic. And is probably about as good a Muslim as TSE.
After university, I lived for four years in Tower Hamlets, a short walk from Brick Lane, with a Muslim landlord.
Now, I know (mostly) middle class Muslims. But my general observation is that they're like anybody else. My orthodox Jewish friends, with the women having ritual baths after periods and no touching of the opposite sex and wigs to hide the hair, are perhaps culturally more alien to me than the Muslims I know.
Here in LA, things are even more weird. Our local public elementary school is *very* Persian - perhaps half the kids are of Persian heritage, split roughly equally between Jews and Muslims. And you'd never guess that in the rest of the world Jews and Muslims don't get along. Here: they meet and they drink and they cry about their friends and families that were killed by the current Iranian regime.
I mention all this, because the world is a complex place.
That's a great piece, which corresponds to my experience. It's equally a mistake to say most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers or that most Muslims are saintly - broadly speaking, they're the same as everyone else who grows up in similar circumstances.
The tendency to make generalisations about other groups (especially critical judgments, but even positive ones) - not just racial but also by age or politics or whatever - is dehumanising. It reduces the individual to a two-dimensional steroeotype, and actual racism is sometimes only one step behind ("wouldn't one to live next to one of those"). In reality, most of us who seem very similar to many others are different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. We're human individuals.
I wonder how it helps anyone - other than impatient news junkies - for the police to leak to the media information about the ethnicity or religion of a suspect, as they apparently have done here.
Is it "the police" as an institution that leak things or is it individuals within the police that do so? Whether for payment or as a favour banked or returned.
I have written before about the troubling links the police have with the press, a topic that Leveson really should have looked at.
I can offer this: when I was working on a case with a major police force (not the Met) I was told by one of the senior detectives that once you had reached a certain level in order to progress further you needed to be able to show press interest in and coverage of your investigations. One of his colleagues, an even more senior detective, did shortly after appear in a TV programme being shown publicly arresting some money launderers in one of those crime documentaries.
I expect a lot of policemen and journalists talk to each other and share tips and information, some of which should probably not be shared. I doubt that this behaviour is properly policed and in some cases it has led to real injustices eg in the Chris Jeffries case in Bristol where the police were IMO at least as much to blame as the press.
People may feel better trying to find blame. But the blame belongs entirely to the psychopaths (often mentally disturbed) who do the deeds, and those who enlist them to do the dirty work of the extreme Islamists or the modern-day fascists. Nobody else.
This is the problematic part of your argument.
Was Donald Trump responsible for the events of January 6th, for example?
You can't divorce the acts, or the actors, from the current climate of public political debate.
This comment from a former MP who was also harassed seems apposite
Extremism may take many names and embrace many causes - Far Right, supremacist, Islamist... but extremism is always the same. It is the same cancer that eats out people's minds. ...And usually pushed by a someone quietly making money & power from the rot. https://twitter.com/CharlotteLeslie/status/1449304044456005632
Yes, Trump was responsible for the events of January 6th. They did it in his name.
All I was trying to do was distinguish between the toxicity on display in too much political debate, which is a huge problem, and acts of terror in pursuance of extremist political causes.
There's a huge amount of aggression around at the moment. You can see it everywhere particularly on the roads. I noticed it when I came back from France where the mood was completely different. I'd put it down to the aftermath of the pandemic but I'm not so sure. There are just a lot of angry people. I'm sure the mood has nothing to do with this incident which I imagine is the work of a schizophrenic but it makes the country a less than pleasant place to be in.
Perhaps Mrs C & I are better off being confined to barracks. It's getting wearisome, though, and we're running out of potatoes.
Also worth noting that the Independent front page says the police are treating this as a "likely Islamist terror attack" - with possible mental health issues associated - so it is really a bit harsh to critique HYUFD for speculating similarly, and as to what it might imply
The Netherlands is also "securing" its democracy in a sad fashion, in the face of similar violent threats
If @HYFUD is getting criticism, he shouldn’t because we all know where this is going - radical Islamist with the usual comments of “mental health issues’ (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting to those with true mental health issues). It was the same in the Reading attack where three gay guys were killed and the pattern of excuses seem similar - in the initial phase, blame it on mental health issues and then, only when the shock of the original attack has lessened, then admit it’s terrorism.
We don't know any of this.
A few years ago in Birmingham (I think) there was quite a big police raid on a number of houses and various Muslim men were arrested. It was said to be a big terror investigation. The men were all released, without charge, and it turned out that there was nothing to it at all - at least not publicly.
Until we know the facts it is unseemly for @HYUFD (or anyone else) to start making political points about immigration. We have no idea whether this person was born here, came here as a baby or a year ago. The facts will come out soon enough I expect.
The poor man is not even in his grave. His wife and 5 children and other family members and friends are mourning him. A bit of common decency - of which thankfully there has been plenty shown on here - is not Amess-worship or shutting down debate. It is just pausing to reflect on the very human sorrow people are feeling at the loss of someone who tried in his own way to make the world a little bit better.
I’m sorry @Cyclefree on this - and I agree with you on a lot on things - I think that’s wrong. When is appropriate? When he’s buried? Six months down the line? When?
In any event, it’s the hypocrisy that is the most galling. When jo Cox killed, there was plenty of people on here who rushed in on here to say it was about Brexit, it was right wing terrorism etc, that we should stamp down on hate etc etc who now proclaim how we must not rush to judgement, let the facts come out etc.
We're free to speculate now, of course.
But we should also acknowledge that - in quite a number of cases - the actual perpetrators / motives weren't who we initially thought.
In about 48 hours, when a lot more information will have been released, we'll have a pretty good handle of what happened, and why it happened.
It may be that he was a Jihadi (although Amess wasn't even a member of the friends of Israel or anything like that that might have brought attention to himself). It may be that the application for his wife to come join him was rejected by the Home Office, and he blamed David Amess for this. It may be that he has been in and out of mental institutions. It may even be that he was a deranged Remainer who wanted to kill a long time Eurosceptic MP. It may be that he was locally radicalised. Or it may be that he wasn't religious at all.
All that is very true and - I’ll say it in advance - that, if any of these cases are true, I was wrong and I should not have assumed as I did.
However, as said, for me it is the hypocrisy that is the most galling. The same people who rushed to pass judgement on Jo Cox’s killer right after the event are now claiming it is indecent to do in this case. Sorry, same standards should apply - either don’t speculate at all, regardless of the political circumstances, or allow people to speculate.
“Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
Good quote. Who?
George W Bush.
Interesting. From all accounts GWB was a smart guy, consistently under-estimated by opponents as some slow old over-privileged cowpoke, allowing him to beat them time and again, A redneck version of Boris
He got played by Cheney and Rummie. A disastrous presidency but probably not a bad person, just massively out of his depth, swimming with sharks. I don't see the comparison with Johnson to be honest - weirdly, I think it's insulting to both of them.
Iraq is now ironically a democracy with Saddam no more.
Afghanistan was still largely Taliban free when he left office and there were no further terror attacks on US soil after 9/11 on his watch.
He also avoided the collapse of the US economy in 2008 in the GFC.
Bush's legacy looks a lot better now than it did then given what has occurred since
Iraq is rated "not free" in the Freedom in the World assessment and an "authoritarian regime" in the EIU's Democracy Index.
The worst terrorist attack in US history happened on GWB's watch, after his administration ignored several warning signs.
The mismanagement of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy by his administration massively accelerated the financial crisis. The economy was in free fall when he left office.
Iraq is now a democracy with an elected President and Parliament and free of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
It was Bill Clinton who let Al Qaeda foster under Bin Laden, merely lobbing a few token missiles at his camps even after the earlier WTC attack in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole. Bush however ensured there were no further terror attacks on US soil on his watch after 9/11.
Most House Republicans voted against bailing out any banks at all, Bush allowed Lehmans to be sacrificed to save the rest and prevent the whole US economy going under
If you really believe the implication of your first sentence I know someone who has a bridge to sell. I don't see how anyone can compare a democracy such the Republic of Ireland with Iraq.
Show me any nation in the Middle East that is?
However compared to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen even the UAE and Turkey, Iraq is now relatively more free and certainly more so than under Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East at the time. Indeed of the Arab nations of the Middle East only Jordan is probably freer than Iraq now.
Plus while Ireland is most certainly a democracy do not forget one of its main parties, Sinn Fein, used to be the political wing of a terrorist organisation
People may feel better trying to find blame. But the blame belongs entirely to the psychopaths (often mentally disturbed) who do the deeds, and those who enlist them to do the dirty work of the extreme Islamists or the modern-day fascists. Nobody else.
This is the problematic part of your argument.
Was Donald Trump responsible for the events of January 6th, for example?
You can't divorce the acts, or the actors, from the current climate of public political debate.
This comment from a former MP who was also harassed seems apposite
Extremism may take many names and embrace many causes - Far Right, supremacist, Islamist... but extremism is always the same. It is the same cancer that eats out people's minds. ...And usually pushed by a someone quietly making money & power from the rot. https://twitter.com/CharlotteLeslie/status/1449304044456005632
He was responsible, yes. He was the one who "enlisted the dirty work" in that case.
Also worth noting that the Independent front page says the police are treating this as a "likely Islamist terror attack" - with possible mental health issues associated - so it is really a bit harsh to critique HYUFD for speculating similarly, and as to what it might imply
The Netherlands is also "securing" its democracy in a sad fashion, in the face of similar violent threats
If @HYFUD is getting criticism, he shouldn’t because we all know where this is going - radical Islamist with the usual comments of “mental health issues’ (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting to those with true mental health issues). It was the same in the Reading attack where three gay guys were killed and the pattern of excuses seem similar - in the initial phase, blame it on mental health issues and then, only when the shock of the original attack has lessened, then admit it’s terrorism.
We don't know any of this.
A few years ago in Birmingham (I think) there was quite a big police raid on a number of houses and various Muslim men were arrested. It was said to be a big terror investigation. The men were all released, without charge, and it turned out that there was nothing to it at all - at least not publicly.
Until we know the facts it is unseemly for @HYUFD (or anyone else) to start making political points about immigration. We have no idea whether this person was born here, came here as a baby or a year ago. The facts will come out soon enough I expect.
The poor man is not even in his grave. His wife and 5 children and other family members and friends are mourning him. A bit of common decency - of which thankfully there has been plenty shown on here - is not Amess-worship or shutting down debate. It is just pausing to reflect on the very human sorrow people are feeling at the loss of someone who tried in his own way to make the world a little bit better.
I’m sorry @Cyclefree on this - and I agree with you on a lot on things - I think that’s wrong. When is appropriate? When he’s buried? Six months down the line? When?
In any event, it’s the hypocrisy that is the most galling. When jo Cox killed, there was plenty of people on here who rushed in on here to say it was about Brexit, it was right wing terrorism etc, that we should stamp down on hate etc etc who now proclaim how we must not rush to judgement, let the facts come out etc.
We're free to speculate now, of course.
But we should also acknowledge that - in quite a number of cases - the actual perpetrators / motives weren't who we initially thought.
In about 48 hours, when a lot more information will have been released, we'll have a pretty good handle of what happened, and why it happened.
It may be that he was a Jihadi (although Amess wasn't even a member of the friends of Israel or anything like that that might have brought attention to himself). It may be that the application for his wife to come join him was rejected by the Home Office, and he blamed David Amess for this. It may be that he has been in and out of mental institutions. It may even be that he was a deranged Remainer who wanted to kill a long time Eurosceptic MP. It may be that he was locally radicalised. Or it may be that he wasn't religious at all.
All that is very true and - I’ll say it in advance - that, if any of these cases are true, I was wrong and I should not have assumed as I did.
However, as said, for me it is the hypocrisy that is the most galling. The same people who rushed to pass judgement on Jo Cox’s killer right after the event are now claiming it is indecent to do in this case. Sorry, same standards should apply - either don’t speculate at all, regardless of the political circumstances, or allow people to speculate.
“Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
Good quote. Who?
George W Bush.
Interesting. From all accounts GWB was a smart guy, consistently under-estimated by opponents as some slow old over-privileged cowpoke, allowing him to beat them time and again, A redneck version of Boris
He got played by Cheney and Rummie. A disastrous presidency but probably not a bad person, just massively out of his depth, swimming with sharks. I don't see the comparison with Johnson to be honest - weirdly, I think it's insulting to both of them.
Iraq is now ironically a democracy with Saddam no more.
Afghanistan was still largely Taliban free when he left office and there were no further terror attacks on US soil after 9/11 on his watch.
He also avoided the collapse of the US economy in 2008 in the GFC.
Bush's legacy looks a lot better now than it did then given what has occurred since
Iraq is rated "not free" in the Freedom in the World assessment and an "authoritarian regime" in the EIU's Democracy Index.
The worst terrorist attack in US history happened on GWB's watch, after his administration ignored several warning signs.
The mismanagement of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy by his administration massively accelerated the financial crisis. The economy was in free fall when he left office.
Iraq is now a democracy with an elected President and Parliament and free of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
It was Bill Clinton who let Al Qaeda foster under Bin Laden, merely lobbing a few token missiles at his camps even after the earlier WTC attack in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole. Bush however ensured there were no further terror attacks on US soil on his watch after 9/11.
Most House Republicans voted against bailing out any banks at all, Bush allowed Lehmans to be sacrificed to save the rest and prevent the whole US economy going under
If you really believe the implication of your first sentence I know someone who has a bridge to sell. I don't see how anyone can compare a democracy such the Republic of Ireland with Iraq.
Show me any nation in the Middle East that is?
However compared to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia even the UAE and Turkey Iraq is now relatively more free and certainly more so than under Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East at the time.
Plus while Ireland is most certainly a democracy do not forget one of its main parties, Sinn Fein, used to be the political wing of a terrorist organisation
Not entirely sure what your point is. FF and FG grew out of the anti- and pro- treaty wings of the IRA as well. So what?
Also worth noting that the Independent front page says the police are treating this as a "likely Islamist terror attack" - with possible mental health issues associated - so it is really a bit harsh to critique HYUFD for speculating similarly, and as to what it might imply
The Netherlands is also "securing" its democracy in a sad fashion, in the face of similar violent threats
If @HYFUD is getting criticism, he shouldn’t because we all know where this is going - radical Islamist with the usual comments of “mental health issues’ (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting to those with true mental health issues). It was the same in the Reading attack where three gay guys were killed and the pattern of excuses seem similar - in the initial phase, blame it on mental health issues and then, only when the shock of the original attack has lessened, then admit it’s terrorism.
We don't know any of this.
A few years ago in Birmingham (I think) there was quite a big police raid on a number of houses and various Muslim men were arrested. It was said to be a big terror investigation. The men were all released, without charge, and it turned out that there was nothing to it at all - at least not publicly.
Until we know the facts it is unseemly for @HYUFD (or anyone else) to start making political points about immigration. We have no idea whether this person was born here, came here as a baby or a year ago. The facts will come out soon enough I expect.
The poor man is not even in his grave. His wife and 5 children and other family members and friends are mourning him. A bit of common decency - of which thankfully there has been plenty shown on here - is not Amess-worship or shutting down debate. It is just pausing to reflect on the very human sorrow people are feeling at the loss of someone who tried in his own way to make the world a little bit better.
I’m sorry @Cyclefree on this - and I agree with you on a lot on things - I think that’s wrong. When is appropriate? When he’s buried? Six months down the line? When?
In any event, it’s the hypocrisy that is the most galling. When jo Cox killed, there was plenty of people on here who rushed in on here to say it was about Brexit, it was right wing terrorism etc, that we should stamp down on hate etc etc who now proclaim how we must not rush to judgement, let the facts come out etc.
We're free to speculate now, of course.
But we should also acknowledge that - in quite a number of cases - the actual perpetrators / motives weren't who we initially thought.
In about 48 hours, when a lot more information will have been released, we'll have a pretty good handle of what happened, and why it happened.
It may be that he was a Jihadi (although Amess wasn't even a member of the friends of Israel or anything like that that might have brought attention to himself). It may be that the application for his wife to come join him was rejected by the Home Office, and he blamed David Amess for this. It may be that he has been in and out of mental institutions. It may even be that he was a deranged Remainer who wanted to kill a long time Eurosceptic MP. It may be that he was locally radicalised. Or it may be that he wasn't religious at all.
All that is very true and - I’ll say it in advance - that, if any of these cases are true, I was wrong and I should not have assumed as I did.
However, as said, for me it is the hypocrisy that is the most galling. The same people who rushed to pass judgement on Jo Cox’s killer right after the event are now claiming it is indecent to do in this case. Sorry, same standards should apply - either don’t speculate at all, regardless of the political circumstances, or allow people to speculate.
“Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
Good quote. Who?
George W Bush.
Interesting. From all accounts GWB was a smart guy, consistently under-estimated by opponents as some slow old over-privileged cowpoke, allowing him to beat them time and again, A redneck version of Boris
He got played by Cheney and Rummie. A disastrous presidency but probably not a bad person, just massively out of his depth, swimming with sharks. I don't see the comparison with Johnson to be honest - weirdly, I think it's insulting to both of them.
Iraq is now ironically a democracy with Saddam no more.
Afghanistan was still largely Taliban free when he left office and there were no further terror attacks on US soil after 9/11 on his watch.
He also avoided the collapse of the US economy in 2008 in the GFC.
Bush's legacy looks a lot better now than it did then given what has occurred since
Iraq is rated "not free" in the Freedom in the World assessment and an "authoritarian regime" in the EIU's Democracy Index.
The worst terrorist attack in US history happened on GWB's watch, after his administration ignored several warning signs.
The mismanagement of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy by his administration massively accelerated the financial crisis. The economy was in free fall when he left office.
Iraq is now a democracy with an elected President and Parliament and free of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
It was Bill Clinton who let Al Qaeda foster under Bin Laden, merely lobbing a few token missiles at his camps even after the earlier WTC attack in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole. Bush however ensured there were no further terror attacks on US soil on his watch after 9/11.
Most House Republicans voted against bailing out any banks at all, Bush allowed Lehmans to be sacrificed to save the rest and prevent the whole US economy going under
If you really believe the implication of your first sentence I know someone who has a bridge to sell. I don't see how anyone can compare a democracy such the Republic of Ireland with Iraq.
Show me any nation in the Middle East that is?
However compared to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia even the UAE and Turkey Iraq is now relatively more free and certainly more so than under Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East at the time.
Plus while Ireland is most certainly a democracy do not forget one of its main parties, Sinn Fein, used to be the political wing of a terrorist organisation
Not entirely sure what your point is. FF and FG grew out of the anti- and pro- treaty wings of the IRA as well. So what?
Both left Sinn Fein after the Irish War of Independence.
Sinn Fein remained the party of the IRA until the GFA
Also worth noting that the Independent front page says the police are treating this as a "likely Islamist terror attack" - with possible mental health issues associated - so it is really a bit harsh to critique HYUFD for speculating similarly, and as to what it might imply
The Netherlands is also "securing" its democracy in a sad fashion, in the face of similar violent threats
If @HYFUD is getting criticism, he shouldn’t because we all know where this is going - radical Islamist with the usual comments of “mental health issues’ (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting to those with true mental health issues). It was the same in the Reading attack where three gay guys were killed and the pattern of excuses seem similar - in the initial phase, blame it on mental health issues and then, only when the shock of the original attack has lessened, then admit it’s terrorism.
We don't know any of this.
A few years ago in Birmingham (I think) there was quite a big police raid on a number of houses and various Muslim men were arrested. It was said to be a big terror investigation. The men were all released, without charge, and it turned out that there was nothing to it at all - at least not publicly.
Until we know the facts it is unseemly for @HYUFD (or anyone else) to start making political points about immigration. We have no idea whether this person was born here, came here as a baby or a year ago. The facts will come out soon enough I expect.
The poor man is not even in his grave. His wife and 5 children and other family members and friends are mourning him. A bit of common decency - of which thankfully there has been plenty shown on here - is not Amess-worship or shutting down debate. It is just pausing to reflect on the very human sorrow people are feeling at the loss of someone who tried in his own way to make the world a little bit better.
I’m sorry @Cyclefree on this - and I agree with you on a lot on things - I think that’s wrong. When is appropriate? When he’s buried? Six months down the line? When?
In any event, it’s the hypocrisy that is the most galling. When jo Cox killed, there was plenty of people on here who rushed in on here to say it was about Brexit, it was right wing terrorism etc, that we should stamp down on hate etc etc who now proclaim how we must not rush to judgement, let the facts come out etc.
We're free to speculate now, of course.
But we should also acknowledge that - in quite a number of cases - the actual perpetrators / motives weren't who we initially thought.
In about 48 hours, when a lot more information will have been released, we'll have a pretty good handle of what happened, and why it happened.
It may be that he was a Jihadi (although Amess wasn't even a member of the friends of Israel or anything like that that might have brought attention to himself). It may be that the application for his wife to come join him was rejected by the Home Office, and he blamed David Amess for this. It may be that he has been in and out of mental institutions. It may even be that he was a deranged Remainer who wanted to kill a long time Eurosceptic MP. It may be that he was locally radicalised. Or it may be that he wasn't religious at all.
All that is very true and - I’ll say it in advance - that, if any of these cases are true, I was wrong and I should not have assumed as I did.
However, as said, for me it is the hypocrisy that is the most galling. The same people who rushed to pass judgement on Jo Cox’s killer right after the event are now claiming it is indecent to do in this case. Sorry, same standards should apply - either don’t speculate at all, regardless of the political circumstances, or allow people to speculate.
“Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
Good quote. Who?
George W Bush.
Interesting. From all accounts GWB was a smart guy, consistently under-estimated by opponents as some slow old over-privileged cowpoke, allowing him to beat them time and again, A redneck version of Boris
He got played by Cheney and Rummie. A disastrous presidency but probably not a bad person, just massively out of his depth, swimming with sharks. I don't see the comparison with Johnson to be honest - weirdly, I think it's insulting to both of them.
Iraq is now ironically a democracy with Saddam no more.
Afghanistan was still largely Taliban free when he left office and there were no further terror attacks on US soil after 9/11 on his watch.
He also avoided the collapse of the US economy in 2008 in the GFC.
Bush's legacy looks a lot better now than it did then given what has occurred since
Iraq is rated "not free" in the Freedom in the World assessment and an "authoritarian regime" in the EIU's Democracy Index.
The worst terrorist attack in US history happened on GWB's watch, after his administration ignored several warning signs.
The mismanagement of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy by his administration massively accelerated the financial crisis. The economy was in free fall when he left office.
Iraq is now a democracy with an elected President and Parliament and free of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
It was Bill Clinton who let Al Qaeda foster under Bin Laden, merely lobbing a few token missiles at his camps even after the earlier WTC attack in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole. Bush however ensured there were no further terror attacks on US soil on his watch after 9/11.
Most House Republicans voted against bailing out any banks at all, Bush allowed Lehmans to be sacrificed to save the rest and prevent the whole US economy going under
If you really believe the implication of your first sentence I know someone who has a bridge to sell. I don't see how anyone can compare a democracy such the Republic of Ireland with Iraq.
Show me any nation in the Middle East that is?
However compared to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia even the UAE and Turkey Iraq is now relatively more free and certainly more so than under Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East at the time.
Plus while Ireland is most certainly a democracy do not forget one of its main parties, Sinn Fein, used to be the political wing of a terrorist organisation
Not entirely sure what your point is. FF and FG grew out of the anti- and pro- treaty wings of the IRA as well. So what?
Both left Sinn Fein after the Irish War of Independence.
Sinn Fein remained the party of the IRA until the GFA
You know the difference between the Old IRA, the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA, right?
There has to be a by-election yes. When Jo Cox was murdered the other parties stood aside, be decent if the same happened this time.
Though when a Tory MP was murdered by the IRA the Lib Dems (I think from memory?) fought and won the following by-election.
You can argue both ways - that terrorists shouldn't win by having a change in MP party because of terrorism, or that we elect individuals and terrorists shouldn't win by making us set aside democratic traditions.
The deceased MP's party traditionally 'moves the writ' for the by-election. So that would be the Conservatives this time.
After the 3 assassinations by the IRA/INLA all parties fought the following by elections, although in fact only 2 took place because one was too close to a General Election. I was surprised at the time by the public's reaction at the Eastbourne by election. I thought they would swing behind the Conservative candidate in an act of defiance against the IRA. There was also a swing against the Conservatives when Michael Portillo won in his by election. The public are more hard nosed than I would have thought.
I agree with Philip, there are arguments both ways as whether parties should stand or not. It is important to give the message that we will not be beaten by terrorism, but which gives that message best.
Also worth noting that the Independent front page says the police are treating this as a "likely Islamist terror attack" - with possible mental health issues associated - so it is really a bit harsh to critique HYUFD for speculating similarly, and as to what it might imply
The Netherlands is also "securing" its democracy in a sad fashion, in the face of similar violent threats
If @HYFUD is getting criticism, he shouldn’t because we all know where this is going - radical Islamist with the usual comments of “mental health issues’ (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting to those with true mental health issues). It was the same in the Reading attack where three gay guys were killed and the pattern of excuses seem similar - in the initial phase, blame it on mental health issues and then, only when the shock of the original attack has lessened, then admit it’s terrorism.
We don't know any of this.
A few years ago in Birmingham (I think) there was quite a big police raid on a number of houses and various Muslim men were arrested. It was said to be a big terror investigation. The men were all released, without charge, and it turned out that there was nothing to it at all - at least not publicly.
Until we know the facts it is unseemly for @HYUFD (or anyone else) to start making political points about immigration. We have no idea whether this person was born here, came here as a baby or a year ago. The facts will come out soon enough I expect.
The poor man is not even in his grave. His wife and 5 children and other family members and friends are mourning him. A bit of common decency - of which thankfully there has been plenty shown on here - is not Amess-worship or shutting down debate. It is just pausing to reflect on the very human sorrow people are feeling at the loss of someone who tried in his own way to make the world a little bit better.
I’m sorry @Cyclefree on this - and I agree with you on a lot on things - I think that’s wrong. When is appropriate? When he’s buried? Six months down the line? When?
In any event, it’s the hypocrisy that is the most galling. When jo Cox killed, there was plenty of people on here who rushed in on here to say it was about Brexit, it was right wing terrorism etc, that we should stamp down on hate etc etc who now proclaim how we must not rush to judgement, let the facts come out etc.
We're free to speculate now, of course.
But we should also acknowledge that - in quite a number of cases - the actual perpetrators / motives weren't who we initially thought.
In about 48 hours, when a lot more information will have been released, we'll have a pretty good handle of what happened, and why it happened.
It may be that he was a Jihadi (although Amess wasn't even a member of the friends of Israel or anything like that that might have brought attention to himself). It may be that the application for his wife to come join him was rejected by the Home Office, and he blamed David Amess for this. It may be that he has been in and out of mental institutions. It may even be that he was a deranged Remainer who wanted to kill a long time Eurosceptic MP. It may be that he was locally radicalised. Or it may be that he wasn't religious at all.
All that is very true and - I’ll say it in advance - that, if any of these cases are true, I was wrong and I should not have assumed as I did.
However, as said, for me it is the hypocrisy that is the most galling. The same people who rushed to pass judgement on Jo Cox’s killer right after the event are now claiming it is indecent to do in this case. Sorry, same standards should apply - either don’t speculate at all, regardless of the political circumstances, or allow people to speculate.
“Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
Good quote. Who?
George W Bush.
Interesting. From all accounts GWB was a smart guy, consistently under-estimated by opponents as some slow old over-privileged cowpoke, allowing him to beat them time and again, A redneck version of Boris
He got played by Cheney and Rummie. A disastrous presidency but probably not a bad person, just massively out of his depth, swimming with sharks. I don't see the comparison with Johnson to be honest - weirdly, I think it's insulting to both of them.
Iraq is now ironically a democracy with Saddam no more.
Afghanistan was still largely Taliban free when he left office and there were no further terror attacks on US soil after 9/11 on his watch.
He also avoided the collapse of the US economy in 2008 in the GFC.
Bush's legacy looks a lot better now than it did then given what has occurred since
Iraq is rated "not free" in the Freedom in the World assessment and an "authoritarian regime" in the EIU's Democracy Index.
The worst terrorist attack in US history happened on GWB's watch, after his administration ignored several warning signs.
The mismanagement of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy by his administration massively accelerated the financial crisis. The economy was in free fall when he left office.
Iraq is now a democracy with an elected President and Parliament and free of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein.
It was Bill Clinton who let Al Qaeda foster under Bin Laden, merely lobbing a few token missiles at his camps even after the earlier WTC attack in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole. Bush however ensured there were no further terror attacks on US soil on his watch after 9/11.
Most House Republicans voted against bailing out any banks at all, Bush allowed Lehmans to be sacrificed to save the rest and prevent the whole US economy going under
If you really believe the implication of your first sentence I know someone who has a bridge to sell. I don't see how anyone can compare a democracy such the Republic of Ireland with Iraq.
Show me any nation in the Middle East that is?
However compared to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia even the UAE and Turkey Iraq is now relatively more free and certainly more so than under Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East at the time.
Plus while Ireland is most certainly a democracy do not forget one of its main parties, Sinn Fein, used to be the political wing of a terrorist organisation
Not entirely sure what your point is. FF and FG grew out of the anti- and pro- treaty wings of the IRA as well. So what?
Both left Sinn Fein after the Irish War of Independence.
Sinn Fein remained the party of the IRA until the GFA
You know the difference between the Old IRA, the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA, right?
Sinn Fein was the party of the Old IRA and after the War of Independence FG and then FF split from it. Sinn Fein was then linked to the Official IRA and then Sinn Fein became the political wing of the Provisional IRA by 1972 which was then the dominant faction in the IRA. Whatever IRA it was Sinn Fein was still its party and the party of extremist Irish Nationalism that never accepted Northern Ireland and until the GFA was prepared to use force to get a United Ireland
So much for kinder gentler politics and avoiding demonisation:
This sort of dehumanising nonsense is why we have labour shortages in the UK. (And why the UK doesn't have any friends any more) Honestly. The Tories jave decided that making everyone miserable is their core purpose. I'm quite disturbed that the English keep voting for them.
To be fair to Ms Slater that's pre yesterday's events.
But it's par for the course for the sesspit that is Scottish politics. It's such a shame 45pc vote for such devisive left wing nationalism.
Holy shit she actually tweeted that Today??
PB ain't got shit compared to SNP types
Do London buses still put a bus seat in the lane behind them to show they are broken down? Because I think your outrage bus needs an equivalent indicator. What are you on about?
Comments
I am a bit concerned the public sector have got too comfortable with teams and zoom. My son's parents evening is on teams - I don't see why that needs to be the case and would prefer it to be in person. I was speaking to a planning officer in a major northern city last week and he said that he hasn't done a single site visit in a year; large planning applications are being decided on the basis of streetview. Some medical consultations can be done over the phone, but a large proportion of examinations must surely be done in person.
I do all my clinics face to face BTW.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13900590/workers-covid-testing-centre-fight-booze/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Some roles will be able to minimise face to face, some perhaps could but should not, but each would be considered separately to my mind. My cousin was attacked many times as a paramedic, and is no longer one, but that role could not stop some public interaction taking place - would it make sense to contrast them with an MP considering if constituent surgeries should take place face to face? Would it be fair for GPs to not go face to face as other doctors and health professionals do?
You and yours have gone above and beyond, sterling work. But the attempted comparison was logically unsound.
Clearly all areas of contact with the public need risk assessing in terms of safety, but there is no real way of stopping such attacks, short of locking MPs in gilded cages.
@exStrategist
The direct link between Rayner and Mr Amess's death, which this poster keeps alluding to ( and then adds something to the effect of "I am not blaming Rayner, but ..." is very unhelpful and tasteless.
I would like to think, for instance, that the deputy leader of the labour party respects conservative MPs as individuals whilst also holding the view that, as a group, they are scum. The latter is not a view that I share, but she should be able to make such an observation so the accuracy or otherwise of it can be debated.
I didn't actually know Sir David - and I'm anti political violence. What's to say?
Would you prefer Ex Stratgist posted a Kumbaya youtube?
You're defending a system that is resulting in worse health outcomes. GPs who refuse to see patients face to face should be sacked and blacklisted from the NHS, no locum work either.
He also said we should not be putting people off being MPs because of this, and to be honest he has a very important point in that respect
Incidentally, such invective against GPs is why so many are burnt out and quitting. We have losr nearly 2000 WTE in the last few years, and proclamations by the government of 11 000 more have just been the usual cant.
The modern GP does 8 till 1 probably plenty of that remote and then its a choice between golf or private work in the afternoon. Its far easier and better paid than it was
Even by the very low standards of the Scottish Greens she’s spectacularly tin-eared.
How did it work last time?
Does SKS have to start the process?
'The LGBT+ Community'
'The BAME Community'
'The Muslim Community'
This is turning discreet individuals into a homogeneous mass.
And this use of the word 'Community' really gets to me. We have a local community where I live. The people here are one community. Not divided by race, religion, sexuality, gender or anything else.
I jokingly ask my wife 'What does the BAME Community think about XYZ?' Just to illustrate the nonsense of it.
Not sure I've ever seen anything like that. Politicians rarely lay aside party electioneering.
Free the Dura Ace One.
I do find myself wondering about @CorrectHorseBattery's hangover though.
Is he up yet?
Though when a Tory MP was murdered by the IRA the Lib Dems (I think from memory?) fought and won the following by-election.
You can argue both ways - that terrorists shouldn't win by having a change in MP party because of terrorism, or that we elect individuals and terrorists shouldn't win by making us set aside democratic traditions.
The deceased MP's party traditionally 'moves the writ' for the by-election. So that would be the Conservatives this time.
Compared with most other professions of comparable pay, GPs are idle.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/by-elections/
I assume Johnson issued the invite. If so, good for him for setting aside party differences in this horrible tragedy,
Bearing in mind that the local mining company wouldn't employ him because of his views, one could understand it.
Increasingly practices are amalgamating into super practices. Lakeside in my area has 200 doctors on the books.
We have chucked the baby out with the bathwater though, with loss of continuity and personal care.
This was the PM's invite not the Lord Mayor's or the civic authorities etc. etc.
Back of the envelope, 650 x £15ph * 8hrs * 50 weeks is approx £4m, add in a million for admin, could be done for £5m which is irrelevant in the big scheme of things. Sadly, not sure if that would displace such attacks to other venues/people or stop them, probably a mix of the two.
The only way it can be stopped is if these people making idiotic comments dial back the rhetoric,
So even if he wasn’t inclined to do the decent thing (I’m sure he is), SKS wouldn’t want to fight another by-election that could expose his weakness.
Which might in some cases be a good idea. GP's were not necessarily good managers of businesses.
People do this because it gets rewarded.
Qualitative research also shows the importance of continuity for chronic conditions.
Less important for ad hoc health visits though. I see the GP very infrequently and I don't know the name of 'my' GP.
If its due to natural causes like cancer, heart attack etc then yes it should take place and the electorate should have a choice. Deaths from natural causes are tragic, but nobody deliberately caused that.
If someone caused the by election by attacking and killing the MP because they dislike that MPs politics, then that shouldn't be 'rewarded' having a contested by-election where the murderer can get what he sought.
Two points from this anecdote. Firstly, this would almost certainly not have happened had I consulted him by phone. Secondly, although GPs can get ground down by the 10 minute interview mainly for chronic conditions about which they can generally do little, especially as the patient does so little to help themselves, there are many exceptional doctors out there doing their very best.
Much more unites most of us than divides us: I remember going to a McD beside work one day with a TS friend to talk about his job, which he was unhappy about. We chatted about work, rent, his poorly cat etc. The vast majority of my conversations with both my good TS friends were similar: about everyday events that can occur to all of us. The fact they were, or wanted, to be TS rarely cropped up. It was mostly an irrelevance.
The problem is, if you are in a small group, you can gain comfort and safety within that group. Therefore it is fully understandable that people within groups congregate together - whether by gender orientation, religion, political viewpoint etc. This is particularly true of small or marginalised groups.
I think a problem can occur when people see the few things that divide them - or keep them in the group - as being more important than those that unite them with everyone else, and use those differences to define themselves. Or when people outside see differences in others, and use those to either stereotype or demean that group, as if the actions of one or two count for all of them. This actually encourages those within the group to batten down the hatches and gain safety within their groups.
There are a whole load more complexities to this, but I think that's a good start on my views.
The Batley and Spen by-election just left the field to assorted freaks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Batley_and_Spen_by-election
On that ludicrous "Omigod Windmills are *SO* Large" piece from the BBC yesterday, trying to wow people with hoe miraculous normal technical processes are (Arts Degrees and the Media...), I liked this bit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58704792
Wind turbines do have some negative effects on wildlife but the extent of this, at scale, is difficult to measure. Plus, very large wind farms at sea must be sited carefully to avoid conflict with shipping lanes.
Unless you are French and the sea route you are blocking is from Zeebrugge to the UK
Case now with the European Court.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-wind-farm-causes-storm-in-belgium-w63w955vr
@ImBuddhish
·
21h
School run, 8 yr old son happily pipes up from back
"Today I am tresbian."
A very unexpected modern parenting moment looms
"What does that mean to you?"
"It means I'm happy"
"Ah that's nice. So what exactly were you learning?"
"French, I am tresbian."
"Ok, so the 's' is silent."
https://twitter.com/ImBuddhish/status/1448979917484474370
It was Bill Clinton who let Al Qaeda foster under Bin Laden, merely lobbing a few token missiles at his camps even after the earlier WTC attack in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole. Bush however ensured there were no further terror attacks on US soil on his watch after 9/11.
Most House Republicans voted against bailing out any banks at all, Bush allowed Lehmans to be sacrificed to save the rest and prevent the whole US economy going under
So I'd argue that the connection between this discourse and yesterday's events is slender, if it exists at all. According to MI5 and everybody else involved in counter-terrorism, the threat of terror now is dominated by two groups: extremist Islamic fundamentalists, and the extreme far right. A cursory scan through convictions for terrorism and planning for terrorism demonstrate this to be the case. In the case of the murder of two MPs, this seems to fit (yes, I know we do not know enough yet about yesterday's events).
People may feel better trying to find blame. But the blame belongs entirely to the psychopaths (often mentally disturbed) who do the deeds, and those who enlist them to do the dirty work of the extreme Islamists or the modern-day fascists. Nobody else.
Was Donald Trump responsible for the events of January 6th, for example?
You can't divorce the acts, or the actors, from the current climate of public political debate.
This comment from a former MP who was also harassed seems apposite
Extremism may take many names and embrace many causes - Far Right, supremacist, Islamist... but extremism is always the same. It is the same cancer that eats out people's minds. ...And usually pushed by a someone quietly making money & power from the rot.
https://twitter.com/CharlotteLeslie/status/1449304044456005632
I can offer this: when I was working on a case with a major police force (not the Met) I was told by one of the senior detectives that once you had reached a certain level in order to progress further you needed to be able to show press interest in and coverage of your investigations. One of his colleagues, an even more senior detective, did shortly after appear in a TV programme being shown publicly arresting some money launderers in one of those crime documentaries.
I expect a lot of policemen and journalists talk to each other and share tips and information, some of which should probably not be shared. I doubt that this behaviour is properly policed and in some cases it has led to real injustices eg in the Chris Jeffries case in Bristol where the police were IMO at least as much to blame as the press.
All I was trying to do was distinguish between the toxicity on display in too much political debate, which is a huge problem, and acts of terror in pursuance of extremist political causes.
However compared to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen even the UAE and Turkey, Iraq is now relatively more free and certainly more so than under Saddam, the most brutal dictator in the Middle East at the time. Indeed of the Arab nations of the Middle East only Jordan is probably freer than Iraq now.
Plus while Ireland is most certainly a democracy do not forget one of its main parties, Sinn Fein, used to be the political wing of a terrorist organisation
Sinn Fein remained the party of the IRA until the GFA
I agree with Philip, there are arguments both ways as whether parties should stand or not. It is important to give the message that we will not be beaten by terrorism, but which gives that message best.