politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where will Parliament relocate to during the Westminster resto

MarqueeMark said:

tlg86 said:

Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.

Does somebody of mixed race not have the right to choose which of those races to allign with? Or does being of mixed race rob them of being either?

I suspect there are still plenty of whites who would say "he can't choose to be one of us whites". I don't know if there is a similar degree of prejudice in the black community that would say "you can be a fellow traveller - but not one of our footsoldiers in our Black Lives Matter culture war. Because you don't know what it's like to be black."

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

Charles said:

LadyG said:

Charles said:

LadyG said:

Charles said:

LadyG said:

Matthew Syed says what I have been saying on here for a while. This is a Cold War with China (and, to a lesser extent, with Russia, Turkey, Iran)

And this is a Cold War we are losing. The West in in steep decline, on all fronts.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/xi-banks-on-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-west-kghxjzzxg

The conversion this weekend of Hagia Sophia (perhaps the pinnacle of western architecture?) from museum to mosque, is symbolic and telling.

https://twitter.com/RTErdogan/status/1284823203492356096?s=20

These things happen in waves.

But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?

Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything

Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect

What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.

The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs

Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s

Golly. That's prescient.

I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.

And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/07/19/think-cancel-culture-is-a-fabrication-think-again/

I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.

On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -

There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.

Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.

Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.

For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.

Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.

The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.

The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.

I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.

There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.

https://twitter.com/wethefemalescan/status/1282515363129950208?s=20

You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.

An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.

Just one point of view. But interesting.

Because they are provoking a backlash?

Or because she does not agree with their aims?

I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.

But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.

You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.

I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.

You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.

I was supporting your original post with irony.

Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim you said.

Nor should you change species on a whim. Even worse!

You're losing me now. What has "changing species" got to do with any of this?

I was doing it on a whim and expecting respect for it. An analogy.

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.

Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?

Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?

And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.

Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.

Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.

State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.

State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.

Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.

There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.

While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation

Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc

I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

kinabalu said:

LadyG said:

Charles said:

LadyG said:

Charles said:

LadyG said:

Charles said:

LadyG said:

Matthew Syed says what I have been saying on here for a while. This is a Cold War with China (and, to a lesser extent, with Russia, Turkey, Iran)

And this is a Cold War we are losing. The West in in steep decline, on all fronts.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/xi-banks-on-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-west-kghxjzzxg

The conversion this weekend of Hagia Sophia (perhaps the pinnacle of western architecture?) from museum to mosque, is symbolic and telling.

https://twitter.com/RTErdogan/status/1284823203492356096?s=20

These things happen in waves.

But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?

Yes, I have. Jolly good, as I recall, though I didn't agree with everything

Reread the last chapter. The conclusion isn’t quite what you expect

What does it say? I read it many years ago and don't have a copy.

The argument is that the real “clash of civilisations” isn’t between Islam/Sino/Judeo-Christian but inside the West between social conservatives and progressives. That will undermine their west and fatally weaken it in the struggle with other cultural blocs

Don’t forget this was written in the early 90s

Golly. That's prescient.

I fear he is right. The rot started in academe, and spread from there. Some of the examples of mad cancel culture in this essay are quite startling, and depressing - see the one about the college persecuting a bakery. Amazing.

And did you know the Vagina Monologues is no longer allowed on American campuses? It is considered regressive and reactionary, as it excludes women who don't have vaginas.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/07/19/think-cancel-culture-is-a-fabrication-think-again/

I won’t defend the Vagina Monologues being classed as transphobic. That sounds extreme and I reject the extremes in this debate. Gender is not merely a social construct unrelated to body at birth. You should not be able to change it purely by proclamation. But the TERF notion that male to female transformation is yet another attempt by the patriarchy to devalue women is equally bonkers. And I say this as a believer in the concept of the patriarchy.

On this subject I believe that if armed with the facts and a degree of empathy most reasonable people would reach agreement with me on the following -

There is such a thing as biological sex. Almost everybody is born male or female. It’s binary.

Gender usually aligns with this but not always. Dysmorphia is a real thing and those affected by it are entitled to the best remedy which is to transition. Denied this they are often doomed to abject misery. It is a small number of people but for them it is (literally sometimes) a matter of life or death. For the vast majority the transition is beneficial. Conversely it harms no-one.

Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim. The process should be neither desultory nor so elongated and intrusive as to be a barrier. Special care is required in the case of minors.

For transwomen (born male) there are certain fears to be addressed. Some of these – e.g. access to female toilets and changing rooms – require information and education only since they are not well founded. Others – e.g. protections around women’s sport and access to refuges from domestic violence – are better founded and require some rules.

Well, it's nice to agree. I can sign up for pretty much all of that.

The trouble is, this debate is being driven by the extremists, not you, and the nutters are taking it down a dark road, where cancel culture is very real and some people are getting badly hurt. And the madness is spreading, not dwindling.

The trouble is, soft liberals like you are either ignoring this trend, or denying it, even when it is right there in front of you. Wokeness really is a problem as you implicitly concede, here.

I think we will end up (by and large) where I've described. And imo there are more people getting hurt by one extreme - the TERF / Rowling tendency which feeds anti trans bigotry - than the other one.

There's no sign that's where we're headed at the moment, though I obv hope you are right. As for people getting hurt, the only ones I can see are allies of Rowling getting fired.

https://twitter.com/wethefemalescan/status/1282515363129950208?s=20

You may not see the upset caused to trans people (an already vulnerable and maginalised group) by the increased hostility they experience due to the output of the "only women bleed" brigade but this doesn't mean it's not real.

An old friend of mine is trans, and her perspective is that the hardcore trans activists are making life WORSE for trans people. She sees them as more of a problem than J K Rowling and Co.

Just one point of view. But interesting.

Because they are provoking a backlash?

Or because she does not agree with their aims?

I can't go much further without speaking to her. These are her opinions not mine.

But I can say this: given that she had to live two years as a woman, to get her NHS gender swap surgery, she is deeply resentful of the new idea that you can just self declare you're a woman and that's it.

You can self declare that you are anything you like. Whether people take any notice is another matter.

I could self declare that I am a labrador. I quite fancy being a labrador - fed, petted and adored. And when I self declare expect peole to respect my choice. It's only polite. I will be deeply offended if they don't. I will cancel them and expose them to all my followers.

You said you agreed with my original post and yet you post this, comparing trans gender to trans species. I smell a rat.

I was supporting your original post with irony.

Transition can be full (with op) or partial (stopping short of this). It should not be compulsory to go all the way. It should however be compulsory to go through a defined process. You should not be changing gender on a whim you said.

Nor should you change species on a whim. Even worse!

You're losing me now. What has "changing species" got to do with any of this?

I was doing it on a whim and expecting respect for it. An analogy.

It’s a well known offensive false parallel. Same comparison used by people who opposed gay marriage

Malmesbury said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.

Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?

Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?

And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.

Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.

Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.

State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.

State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.

Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.

There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.

While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation

Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc

I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?

Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.

Malmesbury said:

And now for something completely different

England Deaths, all settings, revision per reporting day

Only got data from the 16th, but interesting.

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Lewis Hamilton identifies as black despite not actually being black.

What? And I know his mum is white!

Where do we draw the line on this? The whole BLM thing has been very clear that it is about black lives and anyone wanting to make it about racism in general needs to STFU.

If race isn't something people can make a choice about, where do we draw the line?

Penddu2 said:

Charles said:

LadyG said:

Pulpstar said:

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

If you look at deaths through human history and look at their causes, then natural causes is clear number one.

Second is death at the hand of one's own government. Whether it's being killed by the police in the US, executed for one crime or another, or being purged for one reason or another.

Death at the hand of another government is way, way below death at the hand of your own government. Then there are car crasdhes. And then death at the hand of another person - i.e. murder - is below that. Terrorism is way, way, way down the list.

Given the propensity of governments, over time, to use additional powers to kill their own citizens, I'm always surprised that people think strong government is a good thing.

I'm really not sure that's true.

Death in and by war - with another tribe/state/clan - is surely more common than "killed by your own government"

Various implementations of communism have a staggering death toll, dwarf ANY other ideology. And mostly on their own people generally.

The Mongol conquests and the Mughal invasion of India also had a massive death toll. World War Two killed 60-120m.

War is pretty bloody.

I've never even heard of the second war on this list? The war of the Three Kingdoms? Killed 40 million?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

Isn’t that a Chinese civil war?

Isnt that like saying the WW1 was primarily a European Civil War....

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.

Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?

Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?

And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.

Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.

Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.

State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.

State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.

Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.

There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.

While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation

Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc

I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?

Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.

Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.

Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

Andy_JS said:

List of so-called "fashionable" places in the UK.

London
Edinburgh
York
Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area)
Bristol (West End only)
Bath
The Cotswolds
South Hams, Devon
Durham (City)
Isle of Skye

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.

Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?

Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?

And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.

Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.

Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.

State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.

State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.

Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.

There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.

While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation

Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc

I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?

Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.

Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.

Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination

Barnesian said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pagan2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Incidentally @Pagan2 I find your snooty and dismissive way you say "because a few thousand shop keepers might be robbed" frankly disgusting.

Have you been robbed? Have you been through that trauma? Do you have any experience or knowledge about this topic that you are speaking about? Have you got experience in trauma counselling, what is your area of expertise? Have you comforted someone who has had a knife held to their throat?

Do you have any idea how real this is in the real world? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get robbed? Get held up at knife or gunpoint? Do you have any idea how many shop keepers get stabbed in robberies? Any idea how many die?

And you wish to deny them the right they have ALWAYS had to refuse cash. You wish to instil an obligation that has never existed ever in our history to take cash, because you know better? Because their safety comes below your paranoia. If you wish to attend to a cash only business go to a cash only business . . . but guess what, they'll probably have a lot of CCTV too. Cash businesses tend to do so.

Oh do get off your high horse more people are killed and traumatised every year in car accidents than in shop robberies. We could stop people driving but dont because its for the greater good.

Preventing more government snooping is for the greater good and if they are so paranoid and fearful of being robbed do something other than be a shopkeeper.

State snooping is well documented its not paranoia.

State snooping will exist whether or not you compel businesses that don't want to take cash to do so. Cash does not terminate snooping and you are even more naive if you think it does. Yes people get killed and traumatised every year in car accidents but we don't compel people to get behind the wheel if they don't want to do so. We don't compel people to drive when they don't want to. We don't compel people to disable their airbags, unclip their seat belts and drive negligently. We try to reduce harm and risk not increase it.

Being concerned about robbery is not paranoia for commercial businesses. For retail businesses the crime rate is over 27,000 offences per 1,000 properties. Though not all properties are at the same level of risk, some more than others. That is why companies should have the freedom . . . the freedom they have always had . . . to decide what they want to accept.

There has never been a universal obligation to take cash. There never should be.

While just about true, a shop that refused to take cash could easily be done under age discrimination legislation

Unlikely. There have always been shops that refused to accept cash and I can't recall a lawsuit on that ever before. The idea of refusing to accept cash is not new, though its becoming more convenient and easier to do now, but there have been shops in the past that only took cheques etc

I wonder where @Pagan2 draws the line, since "shop" is a vague term. EG if a car showroom decides they only take payment via electronic forms as they don't want someone paying for a £45,000 car with a suitcase full of cash or the security concerns that causes . . . should that business be compelled to take £45,000 in cash?

Given the availability of pre-pay cards etc, it would be quite hard to argue that anyone is discriminated against by card only.

Absolutely. Ensuring universal access to both cash and cards is important. Ensuring universal acceptance of either cash or cards is not.

Prepaid cards have a transaction fee - so again discrimination

I can use my Revolut card as a pre-paid card in the UK without a fee. Is that not universal?

I do the same. And convert currencies at middle rate without a fee. And transfer to overseas banks and people without a fee. And use it as Mastercard in all countries. Without a fee.

I don't know how they make money.

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.

It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.

You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.

It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.

You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.

LadyG said:

Andy_JS said:

List of so-called "fashionable" places in the UK.

London
Edinburgh
York
Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area)
Bristol (West End only)
Bath
The Cotswolds
South Hams, Devon
Durham (City)
Isle of Skye

Large chunks of the Cornish coast, especially around Padstow, the Helford, St Mawes, Fowey, are hyper fashionable. On a sunny summer day the car parks by Roseland beaches are jammed with extremely expensive cars.

I would add parts of Dorset, too.

LadyG said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1284947122824110084

Unless we get a vaccine, the UK economy could shrink by 20%. Terrifying

bookseller said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.

It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.

You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.

China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.

And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.

Malmesbury said:

bookseller said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.

It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.

You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.

China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.

And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.

Huawei hurts more.

Residency for the HKers is a slap in the face that stings, for the Chinese state.

bookseller said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.

It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.

You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.

China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.

And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.

Barnesian said:

bookseller said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.

It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.

You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.

China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.

And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.

It's the signalling that is the problem. Call in the Ambassador and give him a public ticking off. Makes us feel good. Perhaps makes some of the Uighars feel good for a fleeting moment. But counter productive.

There are other ways. In private.
UK: Tell me - why are you treating the Uighars this way when it has such a negative impact on your standing in the world?
China: blah blah internal affairs blah blah
UK: Suppose you were to do xyz. We could support you in that.
China: How do you mean?
UK: Well ...

I'm sure our diplomats could do a better job than me.

LadyG said:

Andy_JS said:

List of so-called "fashionable" places in the UK.

London
Edinburgh
York
Suffolk (excluding the Lowestoft area)
Bristol (West End only)
Bath
The Cotswolds
South Hams, Devon
Durham (City)
Isle of Skye

Large chunks of the Cornish coast, especially around Padstow, the Helford, St Mawes, Fowey, are hyper fashionable. On a sunny summer day the car parks by Roseland beaches are jammed with extremely expensive cars.

I would add parts of Dorset, too.

Charles said:

China views our transactional approach to strategic objectives with contempt.

Pulpstar said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

LadyG said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Barnesian said:

In the competition between China and the West, China has the advantage of scale and the ability to execute a long term strategy (no elections). The West lacks scale and is short term because of politicians' desire to be elected.

But the West does have a competitive advantage. Because it is more diverse and experimental in ideas, technologies and processes it is more innovative than China. Hence China's desire to steal IP.

If the West could capitalise on its innovation capability and at the same time form cooperative partnerships and a stable demos that supports long term strategies (PR for the UK and US) then the West could out compete China.

Disagreed completely.

The West has not just the advantages of innovation but it'd be a step backwards to go for "a stable demos". It is our instability that is our greatest strength. From chaos comes progress.

As for competing with China, we massively outcompete China. Best way of looking is GDP per capita by PPP.

US 67,426
(Hong Kong) 66,527
Taiwan 57,214
UK 48,169
European Union 46,468
Russia 30,820
China 20,984

We don't need to become more like China.

Incredible that Taiwan has a GDP per capita so much higher than the UK.

70 years ago it was an island of peasants and rocks, with no natural resources.

If China can repeat that miracle on the mainland, China will eventually be four times bigger than the USA, in economic might. A big if, tho.

I haven’t seen regional stats for China but I suspect that the coastal cities do well and the other parts of the country are breadline

Absolutely right.

Places like Chengdu are developed.

Barnesian said:

bookseller said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.

It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.

You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.

China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.

And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.

It's the signalling that is the problem. Call in the Ambassador and give him a public ticking off. Makes us feel good. Perhaps makes some of the Uighars feel good for a fleeting moment. But counter productive.

There are other ways. In private.
UK: Tell me - why are you treating the Uighars this way when it has such a negative impact on your standing in the world?
China: blah blah internal affairs blah blah
UK: Suppose you were to do xyz. We could support you in that.
China: How do you mean?
UK: Well ...

I'm sure our diplomats could do a better job than me.

MaxPB said:

Pub report - busier today but that's probably because the Spurs match was on and I was in North London.

Got chatting to one of the bar staff (who turned out to be the manager), she said it was getting better and they are hosting more evening events etc... to get punters in on weekdays, they've filled in all of the forms for the Sunak meals. She said there was a debate about reducing food prices because of the VAT cut but they decided not to bother because it pushes them into profit, but once punters are back they might do it.

dixiedean said:

Cyclefree said:

They should move Parliament to Barrow. Seriously.

It might teach some - quite a few - of our Parliamentarians what life is like outside the fashionable parts of this country, what life is like in places which have a proud industrial heritage and history and which are now having to find alternative ways of earning a living. They would learn about the drugs problem it has and might start to think intelligently about it. They would also wonder about the state of the roads up here and why they are so shit. They could learn about what tidal barrages could do for the area. Etc etc.

It’s not a particularly fashionable place but it has some lovely buildings, a good museum, some good restaurants and is surrounded by gorgeous countryside. And it could do with the exposure, in a way that - with all respect - places like York and Birmingham don’t.

It's got a football league team again too. And the beautiful Cartmel racecourse close by.
Apart from its accessibility from almost anywhere else it has a lot going for it.

Charles said:

Malmesbury said:

bookseller said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Fishing said:

Charles said:

Challenging China where is behaves evilly is the right thing to do. I’m shocked that you think otherwise

If it does any good, absolutely it is.

If it has no effect, it's just empty virtue signalling.

So, for instance, it's right that we offer Hong Kongers citizenship here. But I'm far from sure what if anything we should do about Xinjiang, where we have no influence whatever over the Chinese government's actions or their effects.

Standing up may not help the Uighars. But if we don’t stand up to them they will fled their muscle elsewhere.

The lesson from the past is that you have to punish nations that break the rules early

Punish?

Yes. That could start with censure.

Oh yes ... and then?

There’s the usual range of diplomatic options. But it’s fruitless to speculate as it would all depend on China’s reaction.

It's called virtue signalling. It makes you feel good and virtuous but achieves nothing. Could even be counter productive.

You find out what China wants (or doesn't want) and trade it. You enmesh China in world structures. You flatter them and court them. You don't just piss them off to feel good. Kissinger understood all this.

China is pretty 'enmeshed' already.

And as tough as it might be to take that Britain's censure doesn't carry much weight in the world any more, it doesn't carry some. I'm sure at the moment the Uighars appreciate it. Making these things visible might seem like meaningless virtue signalling to you, but Amnesty International would assure you it doesn't.

Huawei hurts more.

Residency for the HKers is a slap in the face that stings, for the Chinese state.

Given that TikTok has decided not to build its HQ here “because of the geographic context” but that it could review its decision “if the situation changes” gives the lie to the fact these companies are unconnected to the Chinese state

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It did strike me that if aerosols were a significant factor in the spread of Covid that visors would be a bit pointless.

It also shows that masks provide meaningful protection to the wearer, not just to other people.

For full protection you have to wear visors AND masks

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

It did strike me that if aerosols were a significant factor in the spread of Covid that visors would be a bit pointless.

https://twitter.com/Dr2NisreenAlwan/status/1284798530876518401?s=20

Er, you can get infected by aerosols going into your eyes. That's why nurses wear visors in ICUs

They wear visors and mask don't they? In any case aerosols float about as well as being projected directly at you, visors would only provide a barrier in the case of the former.

You seem to be under the delusion that "visors are pointless". An elementary error

Ah, we're at the newt painting>Rioja>wants a pointless internet barney stage of the day.

I cannot deny it. I'm bored. But you did say a silly thing.

Cyclefree said:

They should move Parliament to Barrow. Seriously.

It might teach some - quite a few - of our Parliamentarians what life is like outside the fashionable parts of this country, what life is like in places which have a proud industrial heritage and history and which are now having to find alternative ways of earning a living. They would learn about the drugs problem it has and might start to think intelligently about it. They would also wonder about the state of the roads up here and why they are so shit. They could learn about what tidal barrages could do for the area. Etc etc.

It’s not a particularly fashionable place but it has some lovely buildings, a good museum, some good restaurants and is surrounded by gorgeous countryside. And it could do with the exposure, in a way that - with all respect - places like York and Birmingham don’t.

kle4 said:

LadyG said:

Jeez. These BLM protests/riots are STILL going on in urban USA. Even as the virus returns

How many days is this now? 50?

https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1284964180819234816?s=20

I do applaud their stamina. I don't think I've been angry or euphoric enough about anything to maintain that level of energy. I feel like I must be of tremendous disappointment to revolutionary types.