The Bolivian air authorities have grounded the airline whose plane crashed in Colombia the other day. The only thing is that the one that crashed was the only aircraft they had in the first place. The captain and the manager of the airline were one and the same person.
Whatever happens in Richmond, I thought canvass returns had been completely discredited on this site many times over the years?
Along with internal polls.
It is the analysis of canvass returns that can be dodgy. The raw data is useful for knocking up as long as the canvassing has been done by experienced canvassers using a cautious approach. "I haven't decided yet" means they have decided. - They are voting for your opponent and don't want to offend. "Probably" means "Probably not".
The canvass data I have been knocking up with has been excellent quality with only a few misses. And most of the probables have become definites.
But lawyers and accountants don't really make anything, and in America you can see the vast majority of new graduates are in a very poor way. So the culture of wanting a middle class job looks just as short sighted as the French culture of looking for a job with the loacl council.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Have you been to Tower Hamlets or Newham recently?
The lobby = Westminster, specifically covering Parliament.
Tom Peck is a lobby journalist himself.
Inside info, or getting high on their own supply ?
It's a dangerous game to bet 'huge' on a by-election where the odds are only 2 to 1 at best. That said, Zac doesn't have the backing of a ground game so, his grip is tenuous. If I had a bet, it would have been on Libs all along.
Surely, the Tories are doing the ground game for him .
Yes they are.
Very interesting. Technically, the data belongs to the Conservative party only. Cannot be used by anyone else...and that includes an Independent. No doubt my Tory friends in the area won't tell me what they are doing today. Meaning they are working on behalf of Indie Zac.
Also, in regard to social justice warriors/blacklash among the young, most young people are neither hardcore lefties or hardcore righties who say 'feminism is cancer'. Don't mistake YT, tumblr and Twitter for real life. Most young people simply aren't politically engaged, and we see this time and time again with the fact that only a minority of young people actually vote. And then it's a minority within that minority that vote Tory or UKIP.
One thing I noticed in Australia was how they've been very astute in their immigration policies. They've invited lots of hardworking migrants from high IQ Vietnam, China, Korea, Taiwan, and so on.
On the other hand the influx is quite overwhelming in parts. I predict a successful hard right Australian party will emerge in time, to kick back against this.
But they didn't start off being astute in their immigration policies. They started off being a penal colony for the dregs of society. Surely proving that inherited intelligence being written in genetic tablets of stone is a flawed concept. Give people good food, a healthy environment, and opportunity to better themselves, and they flourish.
Culture is the elephant in the room. If you have a culture that says real men don't work - well, then, you end up with the men not working. If you have a culture saying that God will give you everything, then you get alot of people waiting for God...
If you have a culture thats says study until you drop so that you can become a lawyer and accountant or a doctor... then guess what?
You get a lot of very hard-working and probably not very long-lived lawyers, accountants, and doctors.
To my mind reversing the decline in IQ is the same problem as reversing the decline in general health. It's a twin issue what we put into our bodies and what we put into our minds. And there's a toxic combination of Government and big business who utterly refuse to look at those issues because their profits and/or power depend on the status quo being maintained.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Have you been to Tower Hamlets or Newham recently?
I've never been to those places, period. But then again, those places aren't the whole of London.
A few years back I sat between a couple of experts in artificial intelligence as they argued about *what* intelligence was. Apparently there is no hard and fast definition, and there are probably even multiple types of intelligence.
Given that, making 'artificial' intelligence becomes easier: define it how you want!
On a side note, I've remarked on here that I've noted a distinct correlation between the qualifications someone holds and their practicality; professors tend to be rather impractical in areas outside their immediate field, and doctors slightly more practical.
The late great Arthur Jensen defined intelligence as "speed of reasoning", which is pretty good.
Here's an interesting question: before computers, was having a good memory an important indicator of high intelligence?
On the discussion of IQ, I'm not particularly sure how useful it is at measuring future success any more. As mentioned above it used to correlate quite well to later life achievement, but I'm not sure it will for the current generation of kids. It feels like we're turning into a society of success based on one's identity rather than based on one's ability. Part of the reason Asian immigrant groups place such a high value on education is that we were unable to rely on identity or class advantage to gain access to top jobs. As unintuitive as it seems I think changing that aspect of the workplace with positive discrimination has been bad for immigrant classes, especially Asians where there is less focus on educational achievement than there used to be. I look at my childhood vs the childhood of some young nieces and nephews, the difference is stark. By age three my sister and I were able to read and do basic addition and subtraction. I have two nieces who are 4 and 5 and their parents (my cousin and his wife) are relying on the state to teach them everything and from what I can see it isn't isolated. My sister didn't see anything wrong with it until my mum explained how much of a headstart we both had a primary school and how rubbish the state education sector is at primary level.
As a nation the level of expectations has decreased, not just for WWC boys but for everyone. If we don't challenge this change in behaviour of being happy with "good enough" then I see our relative decline continuing indefinitely.
I think you're broadly right. These are hard things to talk about, but you've done it pretty well and quibbling around the edges won't help.
The level of expectations was dire in rural England 45 years ago! I was one of four grammar school students out of about 60 who went to university. The grammar probably took 30-33% of all pupils in the town (it varied from county to county in those days).
So, allowing for none going to univ. from the secondary modern, about 2% of that year's intake went to university. None of them went to Oxbridge, Imperial or UCL, although I subsequently wished I'd gone to Oxford or Cambridge.
Children from city comprehensives, as I've said before, seemed to have had a better education than I had had, based on the first year at university. It was possibly pushy parents, though, not the school. I don't know.
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
Taking a short break from knocking up in order to warm up.
Heard from a senior LibDem that the figures of 47 LD, 46 Z, 6 Lab were real and released by mistake. That would explain the puzzle of why publish. But there is an art in converting raw canvass returns into predictions of support. I'm not sure if it is an ambitious figure including probables at 100% (the Shuttleworth) or a cautious figure with probs weighted at say 50%. Must be the former.
If it's the raw figure, Zac will win 70:30
There's a well established formula (what was the name again?) to project based on raw canvassing figures. On the scale the teams are working with at this stage of the by-election, I'd expect it to be pretty accurate. I mentioned my election in May earlier due to a bundle in the wrong pile, shipping 200 off my majority to get to 397. The formula from canvassing had predicted 330 or so, on a relatively small sample size.
A few years back I sat between a couple of experts in artificial intelligence as they argued about *what* intelligence was. Apparently there is no hard and fast definition, and there are probably even multiple types of intelligence.
Given that, making 'artificial' intelligence becomes easier: define it how you want!
On a side note, I've remarked on here that I've noted a distinct correlation between the qualifications someone holds and their practicality; professors tend to be rather impractical in areas outside their immediate field, and doctors slightly more practical.
Surely intelligence is simply the ability to deduce.
I'm not sure it's that simple; or if it is, that's purely an analytical intelligence, and not (say) linguistic intelligence.
If I had 1 pound when someone in a mains stream national news paper wrote an article (often a variation of an article they wrote last year) complaining about how they want talk about the topic before depending 800 words talking about the topic I would certainly have a good pile of cash.
The sheer volume of people who have written novelsnwprth of prose on how they are unable to talk about immigration is astounding .
Taking a short break from knocking up in order to warm up.
Heard from a senior LibDem that the figures of 47 LD, 46 Z, 6 Lab were real and released by mistake. That would explain the puzzle of why publish. But there is an art in converting raw canvass returns into predictions of support. I'm not sure if it is an ambitious figure including probables at 100% (the Shuttleworth) or a cautious figure with probs weighted at say 50%. Must be the former.
The only thing I can take from this, is that you are a LD activist knocking doors in Richmond Park.
I was told by senior Lib Dem that real figures were 52 Zac 42 LD. With MOE, probably closer. I think there are porkies around
Taking a short break from knocking up in order to warm up.
Heard from a senior LibDem that the figures of 47 LD, 46 Z, 6 Lab were real and released by mistake. That would explain the puzzle of why publish. But there is an art in converting raw canvass returns into predictions of support. I'm not sure if it is an ambitious figure including probables at 100% (the Shuttleworth) or a cautious figure with probs weighted at say 50%. Must be the former.
If it's the raw figure, Zac will win 70:30
There's a well established formula (what was the name again?) to project based on raw canvassing figures. On the scale the teams are working with at this stage of the by-election, I'd expect it to be pretty accurate. I mentioned my election in May earlier due to a bundle in the wrong pile, shipping 200 off my majority to get to 397. The formula from canvassing had predicted 330 or so, on a relatively small sample size.
It's called the Richmond Formula funnily enough. I know what it is but won't publish it here.
The Bolivian air authorities have grounded the airline whose plane crashed in Colombia the other day. The only thing is that the one that crashed was the only aircraft they had in the first place. The captain and the manager of the airline were one and the same person.
An example of the crapulance of the media in general -
The BAe146 does not have a fuel dump capability. Yet papers/TV news were selling the line that the Captain dumped fuel before the crash and might have been a hero for doing so.
Can no-one do Who/What/Why/Where/When/How anymore?
Monksfield...RE Wealden and Mid Sussex...I take your point RE Tories taking votes for granted. However in both seats the Lib Dems are in fourth place (behind ukip I think). Just think practically it's too much to make up barring a Brexit inspired economic catastrophe. Additionally can't see Farron appealing to Sussex voters in the same way Clegg might have done under different circumstances.
But historically they were always a pretty strong second in both those. There will be a recovery from the 2015 shambles. Hard to say how far that recovery will go but for the Tories, if Brexit is a mess they can wave bye bye to a lot of votes and in a certain type of seat the LDs will receive most. As many on here have observed Tory support is a mile wide but an inch deep across much of the extent.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Depends which study you read. This survey of undergrads found that 62% of women have rape fantasies
Other studies put the figure at anywhere between 30% and 70%.
Whatever the truth, it is clearly a very common fantasy: one of the top three according to sexologists.
So it's only a survey of undergrads. So not representative of women as a whole then. Where are you getting the 30% to 70% figure? Last time I saw it was 31% to 57% reporting to have had such a fantasty at one point. However it's only a small minority - under 20% - who frequently have such fanasties and have an active preference for such fantasies. So not really that common.
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
And they produced the goods. Unless one has experienced it first hand it's really hard to appreciate the speed and complexity of their detailed mathematical/physical calculations, falling into holes and, usually, extricating themselves along the way.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Have you been to Tower Hamlets or Newham recently?
I've never been to those places, period. But then again, those places aren't the whole of London.
Tower Hamlets is a 10 minute walk from the City. I did it on Tuesday.
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
If Einstein or Feynman had not lived, then it is likely we would still be waiting for the General Theory of Relativity or Feynman diagrams. They were the two most creative scientists of the twentieth century.
A few years back I sat between a couple of experts in artificial intelligence as they argued about *what* intelligence was. Apparently there is no hard and fast definition, and there are probably even multiple types of intelligence.
Given that, making 'artificial' intelligence becomes easier: define it how you want!
On a side note, I've remarked on here that I've noted a distinct correlation between the qualifications someone holds and their practicality; professors tend to be rather impractical in areas outside their immediate field, and doctors slightly more practical.
Surely intelligence is simply the ability to deduce.
I'm not sure it's that simple; or if it is, that's purely an analytical intelligence, and not (say) linguistic intelligence.
Language is deduction, my partner is extremely linguistically inclined (unsurprising given that she's Swiss) and she tells me that languages can be deduced. She picked up Russian in a few weeks from zero to conversational with my best friend's wife who is originally from Russia. I think deduction is the key to intelligence and the speed of deduction is how we can measure it.
One thing I noticed in Australia was how they've been very astute in their immigration policies. They've invited lots of hardworking migrants from high IQ Vietnam, China, Korea, Taiwan, and so on.
On the other hand the influx is quite overwhelming in parts. I predict a successful hard right Australian party will emerge in time, to kick back against this.
But they didn't start off being astute in their immigration policies. They started off being a penal colony for the dregs of society. Surely proving that inherited intelligence being written in genetic tablets of stone is a flawed concept. Give people good food, a healthy environment, and opportunity to better themselves, and they flourish.
Culture is the elephant in the room. If you have a culture that says real men don't work - well, then, you end up with the men not working. If you have a culture saying that God will give you everything, then you get alot of people waiting for God...
If you have a culture thats says study until you drop so that you can become a lawyer and accountant or a doctor... then guess what?
You get a lot of very hard-working and probably not very long-lived lawyers, accountants, and doctors.
To my mind reversing the decline in IQ is the same problem as reversing the decline in general health. It's a twin issue what we put into our bodies and what we put into our minds. And there's a toxic combination of Government and big business who utterly refuse to look at those issues because their profits and/or power depend on the status quo being maintained.
Today there are a number of people who are alive, dumb and counted who, in the generations before, would have been dead and excluded.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Have you been to Tower Hamlets or Newham recently?
I've never been to those places, period. But then again, those places aren't the whole of London.
I see burqas and niqabs quite often in Camden now; five years ago I never saw them. I loathe and detest them and I want them banned, or the people that wear them gradually eased out of the country.
Burqas and niqabs don't bother me. If someone wants to wear that, then that's their choice. I don't get why a woman would to cover her whole body, but different strokes for different folks I guess. I haven't been the Camden in a while though, it's been two years now.
The Bolivian air authorities have grounded the airline whose plane crashed in Colombia the other day. The only thing is that the one that crashed was the only aircraft they had in the first place. The captain and the manager of the airline were one and the same person.
An example of the crapulance of the media in general -
The BAe146 does not have a fuel dump capability. Yet papers/TV news were selling the line that the Captain dumped fuel before the crash and might have been a hero for doing so.
Can no-one do Who/What/Why/Where/When/How anymore?
So in conclusion it seems that the airline wanted to squeeze every last drop of it's planes, in this case literally.
So the plane crashed because:
1. For cost reasons they refused a refueling stop. 2. An emergency landing of another plane caused delays, resulting in the plane to run out. 3. The pilots mistook a navigational beacon for the airport and crashed on it.
I also read somewhere that the owner of the airliner was among the dead victims, a very fitting ending if that's true.
On the good side, if the plane hadn't ran out of fuel they would still have crashed on the navigation beacon, probably in a big ball of fire with no survivors, so some people probably survived because of lack of flammables.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Have you been to Tower Hamlets or Newham recently?
I've never been to those places, period. But then again, those places aren't the whole of London.
I see burqas and niqabs quite often in Camden now; five years ago I never saw them. I loathe and detest them and I want them banned, or the people that wear them gradually eased out of the country.
Shepherd's Bush as well. When I looked around Kilburn for a flat a few years ago it wasn't Irish anymore.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Depends which study you read. This survey of undergrads found that 62% of women have rape fantasies
Other studies put the figure at anywhere between 30% and 70%.
Whatever the truth, it is clearly a very common fantasy: one of the top three according to sexologists.
So it's only a survey of undergrads. So not representative of women as a whole then. Where are you getting the 30% to 70% figure? Last time I saw it was 31% to 57% reporting to have had such a fantasy at one point. However it's only a small minority - under 20% - who frequently have such fantasies and have an active preference for such fantasies. So not really that common.
I can't work out whether I prefer your spelling of "fanasties" or "fantasty". Both are oddly appealing.
That's what happens when you're typing on your iPhone fairly quickly and don't do a through spell check.
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
"What's a nice Jewish boy like you doing in a place like this?"
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
"What's a nice Jewish boy like you doing in a place like this?"
Heh. Yes Jews do figure in physics and maths. Is that what drives antisemitism?
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
They'd have been off the scale I guess. IQ tests are mainly about things that mathematically thinking people find easy. Neither of them sought time for their ideas as you suggest. They shouted! Admittedly in a quiet language. St Peter may well ask you to clarify what Feynman said..!
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
"What's a nice Jewish boy like you doing in a place like this?"
Heh. Yes Jews do figure in physics and maths. Is that what drives antisemitism?
There are others of course. Many others.
How could a fool like you even begin to guess Einstein's IQ?
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
They'd have been off the scale I guess. IQ tests are mainly about things that mathematically thinking people find easy. Neither of them sought time for their ideas as you suggest. They shouted! Admittedly in a quiet language. St Peter may well ask you to clarify what Feynman said..!
My feeling is that one should die unhappy, owing to unanswered questions and uncompleted projects.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
"What's a nice Jewish boy like you doing in a place like this?"
Heh. Yes Jews do figure in physics and maths. Is that what drives antisemitism?
There are others of course. Many others.
How could a fool like you even begin to guess Einstein's IQ?
IQ tests may be trivial. I am only commenting on what they may have measured if they sat down to take such a test.
Earlier, I entertained myself on the tube by coming up with politically correct variants of unacceptable station names. I was quite proud of West Tofu / East Tofu. I then alighted at Gender-Neutral Elected Head of State Cross / Inter-denominational person of whatever faith or no faith Pancras.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Have you been to Tower Hamlets or Newham recently?
I've never been to those places, period. But then again, those places aren't the whole of London.
I see burqas and niqabs quite often in Camden now; five years ago I never saw them. I loathe and detest them and I want them banned, or the people that wear them gradually eased out of the country.
I have a thing about nuns in their black habits, white coifs and wimples having been strapped by one for being a bad boy.
Edit: I was about seven at the time at St Mary's Primary School in Oldham.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
I can see how you might see the them that way. But I don't think we should ban them. I'm weary of having the state tell people what they should wear.
A few years back I sat between a couple of experts in artificial intelligence as they argued about *what* intelligence was. Apparently there is no hard and fast definition, and there are probably even multiple types of intelligence.
Given that, making 'artificial' intelligence becomes easier: define it how you want!
On a side note, I've remarked on here that I've noted a distinct correlation between the qualifications someone holds and their practicality; professors tend to be rather impractical in areas outside their immediate field, and doctors slightly more practical.
Surely intelligence is simply the ability to deduce.
I'm not sure it's that simple; or if it is, that's purely an analytical intelligence, and not (say) linguistic intelligence.
Language is deduction, my partner is extremely linguistically inclined (unsurprising given that she's Swiss) and she tells me that languages can be deduced. She picked up Russian in a few weeks from zero to conversational with my best friend's wife who is originally from Russia. I think deduction is the key to intelligence and the speed of deduction is how we can measure it.
It seems to me that IQ is obviously pretty hard to isolate from the culture of its bearer. Even harder to quantify and measure must surely be "common sense". Parading one's IQ strikes me as shallow and even sad. .
I agree, parental culture influences IQ, as well as parental genes, even if it is by a culture of junk food and junk TV.
I see plenty of people squander their potential, while those less bright but better work ethic and ambition prosper in their field. IQ is no substitute for hard work.
Yep. My guess would be,say, that poor old Einstein and Richard Feynman would have measured only about 150. But asking either one any question, should it interest them, would set surely have set off complicated thoughts, so making them untestable in any IQ sense. They both had the mentality to develop ideas over years and decades. It would be interesting to know what each would ask St Peter before seeking admission through the pearly gates.
They'd have been off the scale I guess. IQ tests are mainly about things that mathematically thinking people find easy. Neither of them sought time for their ideas as you suggest. They shouted! Admittedly in a quiet language. St Peter may well ask you to clarify what Feynman said..!
My feeling is that one should die unhappy, owing to unanswered questions and uncompleted projects.
Die thirsty for knowledge certainly. I'd hope everyone finds something that makes them happy by the time they die.
I suspect it's just not me that simply wants to know, and know everything. I guess it links up with a love of books.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Have you been to Tower Hamlets or Newham recently?
I've never been to those places, period. But then again, those places aren't the whole of London.
I see burqas and niqabs quite often in Camden now; five years ago I never saw them. I loathe and detest them and I want them banned, or the people that wear them gradually eased out of the country.
Shepherd's Bush as well. When I looked around Kilburn for a flat a few years ago it wasn't Irish anymore.
There might be more niqabs and burqas per capita in London - and England - than any non-Muslim country on earth. Even in countries with larger Muslim populations - e.g. France - you seldom see the niqab.
What is it about British Muslims that makes these horrible shrouds so popular among them? Is it a particular kind of migrant/community? Is it some perverse kind of British Muslim fashion?
This may help explain.
There was an article in the Spectator a while back about what was taught in most mosques in Britain.
"The largest single group — the one which arguably gives Islam in Britain much of its character — is the Deobandi. It controls around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary."
The Taliban grew out of Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Earlier, I entertained myself on the tube by coming up with politically correct variants of unacceptable station names. I was quite proud of West Tofu / East Tofu. I then alighted at Gender-Neutral Elected Head of State Cross / Inter-denominational person of whatever faith or no faith Pancras.
LOL! That's truly excellent!
Stretching it a little, I once lived at 1609-metre End
Earlier, I entertained myself on the tube by coming up with politically correct variants of unacceptable station names. I was quite proud of West Tofu / East Tofu. I then alighted at Gender-Neutral Elected Head of State Cross / Inter-denominational person of whatever faith or no faith Pancras.
LOL! That's truly excellent!
Stretching it a little, I once lived at 1609-metre End
The real question: is there time for the announcement of the station name between leaving the previous station?
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
I can see how you might see the them that way. But I don't think we should ban them. I'm weary of having the state tell people what they should wear.
Take the piss out of them. However, despite Life of Brian, satirising other religions 40 years later seems to be beyond us.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
I can see how you might see the them that way. But I don't think we should ban them. I'm weary of having the state tell people what they should wear.
The state does not tell people what they should wear. Other than telling people that they should wear something when they go out, as the Naked Rambler will attest to.
But states do ban the wearing of uniforms for reasons of public order. See, for instance, Germany.
So the question is whether it makes sense for states to ban this particular item of clothing. It is more than an item of clothing. It represents a particular ideological view, one reason why Islamists are so keen on insisting that women should wear it and that Muslim women who dress in a Western way are somehow not proper Muslims and letting the side down.
It is a difficult question. Instinctively I am against states banning things. But there are times/circumstances where a ban may be necessary in order to preserve other freedoms and to lay down a marker about what we will and will not tolerate as a society.
It is notable that an increasing number of Western European countries have started banning it.
@steve_hawkes: Lib Dems are changing up in Richmond - offering to drive commuters to polling booths - "next two hours are vital"
Desperate if true.
Wouldn't that be illegal? Assuming it isn't then it's a bit underhand. Mind you I imagine that a wise voter for another party can get a free cab ride out of this. The downside of lots of LD chat for the duration of the journey may be too much though.
Zac is uniquely well positioned to lose. I don't think he will though.
You don't know how that person is going to vote. The ethical thing, and ultimately the self interested thing I suspect, would be to freely offer lifts to voters of any party to encourage participation.
Reading through the thread, the Lib Dems certainly have to take lessons from the Tories on expectation management. Where starting from 58:16 down and facing a 24,000 majority is the most positive position anyone could be in, and failure to win would simply underline their utter failure.
Taking a short break from knocking up in order to warm up.
Heard from a senior LibDem that the figures of 47 LD, 46 Z, 6 Lab were real and released by mistake. That would explain the puzzle of why publish. But there is an art in converting raw canvass returns into predictions of support. I'm not sure if it is an ambitious figure including probables at 100% (the Shuttleworth) or a cautious figure with probs weighted at say 50%. Must be the former.
If it's the raw figure, Zac will win 70:30
There's a well established formula (what was the name again?) to project based on raw canvassing figures. On the scale the teams are working with at this stage of the by-election, I'd expect it to be pretty accurate. I mentioned my election in May earlier due to a bundle in the wrong pile, shipping 200 off my majority to get to 397. The formula from canvassing had predicted 330 or so, on a relatively small sample size.
It's called the Richmond Formula funnily enough. I know what it is but won't publish it here.
Zac won't win 70:30.
The Richmond formula indeed! For various family health issues I haven't been able to make it down but thanks for all you have done for the cause. Last push now.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
I can see how you might see the them that way. But I don't think we should ban them. I'm weary of having the state tell people what they should wear.
Take the piss out of them. However, despite Life of Brian, satirising other religions 40 years later seems to be beyond us.
Taking the piss is fine. The "Does my bomb look big in this?" cartoon is an example. But that doesn't really help those women who may feel coerced or pressured, however, subtly, into donning the garments and otherwise constraining their lives to meet some ideal of Muslim womanhood, as defined by Islamists.
Sometimes we have to take some more substantive action to enlarge or preserve freedoms, including the right not to wear it, when others are abusing their freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
Based on the limited info, all of which is anecdotal, I think the lib dems will narrowly win in Richmond.
Goldsmith will lose a big chunk of his personal vote because of his stance on Brexit and the tone of his Mayoral campaign. His modernising eco warrior green image is fucked. It wouldn't matter had there been a narrow remain win, but the fact that Brexit won and unleashed all these nasty forces makes goldsmith look like naive and a tool. It must have a pretty big effect.
Of course there will still be a large amount of support for him, but its just not clear to me if it will turn out to vote. Why are you going to bother? Many probably voted remain in the referendum. Heathrow can't be that big an issue for everyone, and for many the brexit uncertainty probably trumps it in any case.
On the other hand for the lib dem supporters - and anyone who detests Brexit and what is happening in the world will be massively motivated to vote, and the lib dem GOTV operation must bear some fruit in this regard. If you are annoyed about Brexit, this is your second referendum. The lib dems are clearly the only game in town and the amount of literature they have bombed the place with right up to today must be significant.
As for the canvass data - the idea it was unintentionally leaked is credible to me.
So I think the lib dems should just about be able to do it.
Earlier, I entertained myself on the tube by coming up with politically correct variants of unacceptable station names. I was quite proud of West Tofu / East Tofu. I then alighted at Gender-Neutral Elected Head of State Cross / Inter-denominational person of whatever faith or no faith Pancras.
Good stuff. I would think there could be a job for you at TFL if you are not hw.
Earlier, I entertained myself on the tube by coming up with politically correct variants of unacceptable station names. I was quite proud of West Tofu / East Tofu. I then alighted at Gender-Neutral Elected Head of State Cross / Inter-denominational person of whatever faith or no faith Pancras.
LOL! That's truly excellent!
Stretching it a little, I once lived at 1609-metre End
The real question: is there time for the announcement of the station name between leaving the previous station?
It would transform the game of Mornington Religious Symbol.
Wouldn't be the first time: Richmond & Barnes went to three recounts in 1983. The Tories won by 74 votes. A young Keith Vaz was the Labour candidate with three thousand.
I have no idea what will happen later tonight in Richmond but with the full on Lib Dem campaign with reportedly 300 peers and all the high and mighty Lib Dems hitting 30,000 doors and even Bob Geldorf appearance yesterday they had better win as they will never have a better chance in a constituency that is so Lib Dem in it's make up
Remarkably productive people these Lib Dems, trebling their peers from around 100 to 300 in a morning.
Unless the report came from the barchart department.
Genuinely, where did the number come from? There are plenty of news outlets boneheaded enough to get it wrong by three times, especially the ones that count on their fingers.
Earlier, I entertained myself on the tube by coming up with politically correct variants of unacceptable station names. I was quite proud of West Tofu / East Tofu. I then alighted at Gender-Neutral Elected Head of State Cross / Inter-denominational person of whatever faith or no faith Pancras.
LOL! That's truly excellent!
Stretching it a little, I once lived at 1609-metre End
The real question: is there time for the announcement of the station name between leaving the previous station?
It would transform the game of Mornington Religious Symbol.
I have no idea what will happen later tonight in Richmond but with the full on Lib Dem campaign with reportedly 300 peers and all the high and mighty Lib Dems hitting 30,000 doors and even Bob Geldorf appearance yesterday they had better win as they will never have a better chance in a constituency that is so Lib Dem in it's make up
Remarkably productive people these Lib Dems, trebling their peers from around 100 to 300 in a morning.
Unless the report came from the barchart department.
Genuinely, where did the number come from? There are plenty of news outlets boneheaded enough to get it wrong by three times, especially the ones that count on their fingers.
I saw a meme on twitter which conflated the 100 odd Lib Dem peers with the £300 a day stipend they can claim when the Lords sits
As I predicted. Free Movement "as it operated before". So they're going to tweak Free Movement. It will be Free Movement with a job offer.
Judging by today's migration stats that will take 130,000 people off the immigration figure, which is no small thing.
I doubt TMay will get net migration down to tens of thousands, but she could get it significantly under 200,000 which is a big drop from 330,000 and would probably placate the voters.
200k are still coming from non-eu countries, which is within our control whatever brexit. But that would require some tough decisions.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
I can see how you might see the them that way. But I don't think we should ban them. I'm weary of having the state tell people what they should wear.
Take the piss out of them. However, despite Life of Brian, satirising other religions 40 years later seems to be beyond us.
It's not other religions, tho, is it? It's Islam which is now protected by a tacit blasphemy law.
See the gymnast who had to grovel for his mockery of the faith, and was then suspended, anyway.
It's abhorrent what is happening to us. And when is TMay gonna do something about FGM? It is arguably the greatest scandal of the age, in the UK - 5000 British girls a year are cut - and we have not had one single prosecution. Not one.
There was one. A failed one. Of a surgeon who was dealing with a woman after childbirth.
There would be far more prosecutions if we made this an offence of strict liability i.e. if a girl is found "cut" her parents are held automatically responsible and if we had regular inspections by nurses of girls at school. Oh and made wards of court/took into care all the children in a family where one child had suffered FGM. And put the parents on the register of sexual offenders.
FGM is child abuse.
Education is all very fine. But some real deterrent action is needed. If France can have successful convictions so can we.
At the moment, even if a girl is cut there is no penalty for the parents. So why wouldn't they continue with this abhorrent practice? We need to shift radically the balance between risk and reward by making the risks for the parents far far greater.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
I can see how you might see the them that way. But I don't think we should ban them. I'm weary of having the state tell people what they should wear.
The state does not tell people what they should wear. Other than telling people that they should wear something when they go out, as the Naked Rambler will attest to.
But states do ban the wearing of uniforms for reasons of public order. See, for instance, Germany.
So the question is whether it makes sense for states to ban this particular item of clothing. It is more than an item of clothing. It represents a particular ideological view, one reason why Islamists are so keen on insisting that women should wear it and that Muslim women who dress in a Western way are somehow not proper Muslims and letting the side down.
It is a difficult question. Instinctively I am against states banning things. But there are times/circumstances where a ban may be necessary in order to preserve other freedoms and to lay down a marker about what we will and will not tolerate as a society.
It is notable that an increasing number of Western European countries have started banning it.
I have no problem with headscarves. The queen often wears one! Facial coverings are a different matter.
On the other hand, there are an awful lot of athiest muslims - even in Saudi:
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
I can see how you might see the them that way. But I don't think we should ban them. I'm weary of having the state tell people what they should wear.
Take the piss out of them. However, despite Life of Brian, satirising other religions 40 years later seems to be beyond us.
Taking the piss is fine. The "Does my bomb look big in this?" cartoon is an example. But that doesn't really help those women who may feel coerced or pressured, however, subtly, into donning the garments and otherwise constraining their lives to meet some ideal of Muslim womanhood, as defined by Islamists.
Sometimes we have to take some more substantive action to enlarge or preserve freedoms, including the right not to wear it, when others are abusing their freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
Some women want to wear the burka, and feel a religious duty to do so. They're misguided fools in my mind, but they undoubtedly exist. Banning the burka will prevent them from partaking in society; from going to the shops, going to the doctors, etc, etc.
Which is the greater risk: some women being coerced into wearing them, or some women being effectively banned from society? Both are abhorrent.
As far as I'm concerned there're no easy answers to a problem caused by when religion becomes culture.
You also have to be careful to ensure that it is being banned because of a genuine harm, rather than because "I don't like seeing it" / "I don't like others seeing it". Witness the recent changes on porn law.
Edit: there are certainly occasions when they should be banned; e.g. in courts and similar 'official' circumstances.
I have no idea what will happen later tonight in Richmond but with the full on Lib Dem campaign with reportedly 300 peers and all the high and mighty Lib Dems hitting 30,000 doors and even Bob Geldorf appearance yesterday they had better win as they will never have a better chance in a constituency that is so Lib Dem in it's make up
Remarkably productive people these Lib Dems, trebling their peers from around 100 to 300 in a morning.
Unless the report came from the barchart department.
Genuinely, where did the number come from? There are plenty of news outlets boneheaded enough to get it wrong by three times, especially the ones that count on their fingers.
I saw a meme on twitter which conflated the 100 odd Lib Dem peers with the £300 a day stipend they can claim when the Lords sits
I read a figure of 300 peers but it was obviously wrong. However my general point still stands
What percentage of women wearing the niqab or burqa on British streets were born here? For those who weren't (I would guess the majority), under what criteria did they immigrate to the UK?
The Lib Dems saying it will go to a recount means they are close but no cigar.
I'm guessing the three wards that were added to the constituency from Surbiton in the 1997 boundary changes — Canbury, Coombe Hill, Tudor — are the ones causing the LDs a few problems.
The Bolivian air authorities have grounded the airline whose plane crashed in Colombia the other day. The only thing is that the one that crashed was the only aircraft they had in the first place. The captain and the manager of the airline were one and the same person.
An example of the crapulance of the media in general -
The BAe146 does not have a fuel dump capability. Yet papers/TV news were selling the line that the Captain dumped fuel before the crash and might have been a hero for doing so.
Can no-one do Who/What/Why/Where/When/How anymore?
So in conclusion it seems that the airline wanted to squeeze every last drop of it's planes, in this case literally.
So the plane crashed because:
1. For cost reasons they refused a refueling stop. 2. An emergency landing of another plane caused delays, resulting in the plane to run out. 3. The pilots mistook a navigational beacon for the airport and crashed on it.
I also read somewhere that the owner of the airliner was among the dead victims, a very fitting ending if that's true.
On the good side, if the plane hadn't ran out of fuel they would still have crashed on the navigation beacon, probably in a big ball of fire with no survivors, so some people probably survived because of lack of flammables.
I'm sure the plane wouldn't have crashed at all if it hadn't run out of fuel! I don't really see how he could have mistaken a radio beacon for an airport, especially since he knew he was still some distance from the airport. No, the plane crashed because it had no fuel, hence no thrust and no electrical power, the terrain was mountainous, and it was dark.
What percentage of women wearing the niqab or burqa on British streets were born here? For those who weren't (I would guess the majority), under what criteria did they immigrate to the UK?
Older Muslim women are less likely to wear burqas. In fact most of them wear western clothing, as they did in the 60s and 70s.
Completely agree with foxinthesoxuk and Alstair re this IQ race debate. Re female sexuality, some women have rape fantasies. But the last time I saw stats on the matter it showed that most didn't.
When I've been in London I've seen most people in Western clothes. So I don't recognise the reality of some on here.
Of course most people in London are in Western clothes. But what you see now, which you did not see before, are women in burqas and in areas where you might not expect them e.g. Kilburn, West Hampstead etc.
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
I can see how you might see the them that way. But I don't think we should ban them. I'm weary of having the state tell people what they should wear.
Take the piss out of them. However, despite Life of Brian, satirising other religions 40 years later seems to be beyond us.
It's not other religions, tho, is it? It's Islam which is now protected by a tacit blasphemy law.
See the gymnast who had to grovel for his mockery of the faith, and was then suspended, anyway.
It's abhorrent what is happening to us. And when is TMay gonna do something about FGM? It is arguably the greatest scandal of the age, in the UK - 5000 British girls a year are cut - and we have not had one single prosecution. Not one.
There was one. A failed one. Of a surgeon who was dealing with a woman after childbirth.
There would be far more prosecutions if we made this an offence of strict liability i.e. if a girl is found "cut" her parents are held automatically responsible and if we had regular inspections by nurses of girls at school. Oh and made wards of court/took into care all the children in a family where one child had suffered FGM. And put the parents on the register of sexual offenders.
FGM is child abuse.
Education is all very fine. But some real deterrent action is needed. If France can have successful convictions so can we.
At the moment, even if a girl is cut there is no penalty for the parents. So why wouldn't they continue with this abhorrent practice? We need to shift radically the balance between risk and reward by making the risks for the parents far far greater.
" if a girl is found "cut" her parents are held automatically responsible"
Earlier, I entertained myself on the tube by coming up with politically correct variants of unacceptable station names. I was quite proud of West Tofu / East Tofu. I then alighted at Gender-Neutral Elected Head of State Cross / Inter-denominational person of whatever faith or no faith Pancras.
LOL! That's truly excellent!
Stretching it a little, I once lived at 1609-metre End
Taking the piss is fine. The "Does my bomb look big in this?" cartoon is an example. But that doesn't really help those women who may feel coerced or pressured, however, subtly, into donning the garments and otherwise constraining their lives to meet some ideal of Muslim womanhood, as defined by Islamists.
Sometimes we have to take some more substantive action to enlarge or preserve freedoms, including the right not to wear it, when others are abusing their freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
Some women want to wear the burka, and feel a religious duty to do so. They're misguided fools in my mind, but they undoubtedly exist. Banning the burka will prevent them from partaking in society; from going to the shops, going to the doctors, etc, etc.
Which is the greater risk: some women being coerced into wearing them, or some women being effectively banned from society? Both are abhorrent.
As far as I'm concerned there're no easy answers to a problem caused by when religion becomes culture.
You also have to be careful to ensure that it is being banned because of a genuine harm, rather than because "I don't like seeing it" / "I don't like others seeing it". Witness the recent changes on porn law.
Edit: there are certainly occasions when they should be banned; e.g. in courts and similar 'official' circumstances.
I agree that there is no easy answer.
The arguments for banning don't just relate to the women involved, though. We are entitled as a society to set down some red lines about what we will and will not tolerate and, frankly, I don't want to tolerate the growth of Islamism in my country or permit its spread. We are entitled as a society to worry about social cohesion and integration and about having a community which keeps itself apart in a way which may risk damaging social cohesion and integration.
I feel uneasy that any ban would, as you say, bear most heavily on women. But this is in part because that religion/culture itself bears down very heavily on women and in a way which is incompatible with life as a Western woman in a Western society.
In the end, I think that in a Western country where there is a clash between religion and the state - if no other solution can be found - religion has to come second. We have long since stopped being a credal society where our laws/mores etc are determined by religious requirements.
The Lib Dems saying it will go to a recount means they are close but no cigar.
I'm guessing the three wards that were added to the constituency from Surbiton in the 1997 boundary changes — Canbury, Coombe Hill, Tudor — are the ones causing the LDs a few problems.
Ironically it was their inclusion in Richmond Park which allowed the LibDems to win Kingston & Surbiton by 56 votes in 1997.
The Conservative majority in Richmond & Barnes in 1983 was 74:
Whatever else people might think about Hollande his response to the terrorist attacks that have taken place in France has been impressively robust, and he and the authorities deserve credit for that.
Comments
The Bolivian air authorities have grounded the airline whose plane crashed in Colombia the other day. The only thing is that the one that crashed was the only aircraft they had in the first place. The captain and the manager of the airline were one and the same person.
Best site for discussion of the crash:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/587574-jet-goes-down-its-way-medellin-colombia-14.html
The canvass data I have been knocking up with has been excellent quality with only a few misses. And most of the probables have become definites.
'Leaving the country is going to be very very difficult'
To my mind reversing the decline in IQ is the same problem as reversing the decline in general health. It's a twin issue what we put into our bodies and what we put into our minds. And there's a toxic combination of Government and big business who utterly refuse to look at those issues because their profits and/or power depend on the status quo being maintained.
So, allowing for none going to univ. from the secondary modern, about 2% of that year's intake went to university. None of them went to Oxbridge, Imperial or UCL, although I subsequently wished I'd gone to Oxford or Cambridge.
Children from city comprehensives, as I've said before, seemed to have had a better education than I had had, based on the first year at university. It was possibly pushy parents, though, not the school. I don't know.
There's a well established formula (what was the name again?) to project based on raw canvassing figures. On the scale the teams are working with at this stage of the by-election, I'd expect it to be pretty accurate. I mentioned my election in May earlier due to a bundle in the wrong pile, shipping 200 off my majority to get to 397. The formula from canvassing had predicted 330 or so, on a relatively small sample size.
The sheer volume of people who have written novelsnwprth of prose on how they are unable to talk about immigration is astounding .
Zac won't win 70:30.
The BAe146 does not have a fuel dump capability. Yet papers/TV news were selling the line that the Captain dumped fuel before the crash and might have been a hero for doing so.
Can no-one do Who/What/Why/Where/When/How anymore?
IQ is useless in such extremes.
So the plane crashed because:
1. For cost reasons they refused a refueling stop.
2. An emergency landing of another plane caused delays, resulting in the plane to run out.
3. The pilots mistook a navigational beacon for the airport and crashed on it.
I also read somewhere that the owner of the airliner was among the dead victims, a very fitting ending if that's true.
On the good side, if the plane hadn't ran out of fuel they would still have crashed on the navigation beacon, probably in a big ball of fire with no survivors, so some people probably survived because of lack of flammables.
There are others of course. Many others.
In Scotland, 27% of Labour voters at GE 2015 now support the Conservatives.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/11/yougov-mark-st-andrews-day/
And, like @SeanT, I detest them: they are a uniform whose message is a "F*ck you" to our society.
Edit: I was about seven at the time at St Mary's Primary School in Oldham.
I disagree that intelligence is anything as simple as deduction, or could be reduced down to it.
I suspect it's just not me that simply wants to know, and know everything. I guess it links up with a love of books.
There was an article in the Spectator a while back about what was taught in most mosques in Britain.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/06/who-runs-our-mosques/
"The largest single group — the one which arguably gives Islam in Britain much of its character — is the Deobandi. It controls around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary."
The Taliban grew out of Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Stretching it a little, I once lived at 1609-metre End
But states do ban the wearing of uniforms for reasons of public order. See, for instance, Germany.
So the question is whether it makes sense for states to ban this particular item of clothing. It is more than an item of clothing. It represents a particular ideological view, one reason why Islamists are so keen on insisting that women should wear it and that Muslim women who dress in a Western way are somehow not proper Muslims and letting the side down.
It is a difficult question. Instinctively I am against states banning things. But there are times/circumstances where a ban may be necessary in order to preserve other freedoms and to lay down a marker about what we will and will not tolerate as a society.
It is notable that an increasing number of Western European countries have started banning it.
I took an IQ test once.
But then I gave it back.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/804430163052204032
Sometimes we have to take some more substantive action to enlarge or preserve freedoms, including the right not to wear it, when others are abusing their freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
Based on the limited info, all of which is anecdotal, I think the lib dems will narrowly win in Richmond.
Goldsmith will lose a big chunk of his personal vote because of his stance on Brexit and the tone of his Mayoral campaign. His modernising eco warrior green image is fucked. It wouldn't matter had there been a narrow remain win, but the fact that Brexit won and unleashed all these nasty forces makes goldsmith look like naive and a tool. It must have a pretty big effect.
Of course there will still be a large amount of support for him, but its just not clear to me if it will turn out to vote. Why are you going to bother? Many probably voted remain in the referendum. Heathrow can't be that big an issue for everyone, and for many the brexit uncertainty probably trumps it in any case.
On the other hand for the lib dem supporters - and anyone who detests Brexit and what is happening in the world will be massively motivated to vote, and the lib dem GOTV operation must bear some fruit in this regard. If you are annoyed about Brexit, this is your second referendum. The lib dems are clearly the only game in town and the amount of literature they have bombed the place with right up to today must be significant.
As for the canvass data - the idea it was unintentionally leaked is credible to me.
So I think the lib dems should just about be able to do it.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/804431340825440258
Unless the report came from the barchart department.
Genuinely, where did the number come from? There are plenty of news outlets boneheaded enough to get it wrong by three times, especially the ones that count on their fingers.
As part of the report they stated that only 1% of the population pay any tax!
Zac - 1.44
LD - 2.9
There would be far more prosecutions if we made this an offence of strict liability i.e. if a girl is found "cut" her parents are held automatically responsible and if we had regular inspections by nurses of girls at school. Oh and made wards of court/took into care all the children in a family where one child had suffered FGM. And put the parents on the register of sexual offenders.
FGM is child abuse.
Education is all very fine. But some real deterrent action is needed. If France can have successful convictions so can we.
At the moment, even if a girl is cut there is no penalty for the parents. So why wouldn't they continue with this abhorrent practice? We need to shift radically the balance between risk and reward by making the risks for the parents far far greater.
On the other hand, there are an awful lot of athiest muslims - even in Saudi:
http://nypost.com/2016/11/26/atheist-muslims-could-be-the-key-to-defeating-islamic-terror/
Which is the greater risk: some women being coerced into wearing them, or some women being effectively banned from society? Both are abhorrent.
As far as I'm concerned there're no easy answers to a problem caused by when religion becomes culture.
You also have to be careful to ensure that it is being banned because of a genuine harm, rather than because "I don't like seeing it" / "I don't like others seeing it". Witness the recent changes on porn law.
Edit: there are certainly occasions when they should be banned; e.g. in courts and similar 'official' circumstances.
Good evening, everyone.
https://www.indy100.com/article/daily-mail-report-financial-fear-brexit-decline-print-sales-7450056
Totally agree.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/804432505973534720
Related BBC articles:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38011407
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37983834
The arguments for banning don't just relate to the women involved, though. We are entitled as a society to set down some red lines about what we will and will not tolerate and, frankly, I don't want to tolerate the growth of Islamism in my country or permit its spread. We are entitled as a society to worry about social cohesion and integration and about having a community which keeps itself apart in a way which may risk damaging social cohesion and integration.
I feel uneasy that any ban would, as you say, bear most heavily on women. But this is in part because that religion/culture itself bears down very heavily on women and in a way which is incompatible with life as a Western woman in a Western society.
In the end, I think that in a Western country where there is a clash between religion and the state - if no other solution can be found - religion has to come second. We have long since stopped being a credal society where our laws/mores etc are determined by religious requirements.
The Conservative majority in Richmond & Barnes in 1983 was 74:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_and_Barnes_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Will there be an exit poll from Richmond Park?
If so only 30 minutes to go.................................................