alex_ said:

Quite surprised Denmark let their fans travel to Russia!

tlg86 said:

alex_ said:

Quite surprised Denmark let their fans travel to Russia!

It's in Copenhagen...

beentheredonethat said:

alex_ said:

Gallowgate said:

I'm not sure the people of Teesside want a load of southerners moving to their towns.

This is the thing i wonder when people start mooting things like moving the House of Lords to York. Why the hell would the citizens of York want Parliament and all its hangers on moving up there?

Money. The EU Parliament there keeps that city going.

beentheredonethat said:

alex_ said:

Gallowgate said:

I'm not sure the people of Teesside want a load of southerners moving to their towns.

This is the thing i wonder when people start mooting things like moving the House of Lords to York. Why the hell would the citizens of York want Parliament and all its hangers on moving up there?

Money. The EU Parliament there keeps that city going.

alex_ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Black_Rook said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oxford Student Union is planning to hire 'sensitivity readers' to stop student newspapers including historic campus sheet Cherwell publishing 'problematic' articles that are 'implicitly racist or sexist'.

Officials at the student body are planning to set up a 'Student Consultancy of Sensitivity Readers' who would be elected and paid to check articles across various newspapers for signs of supposed insensitivity.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9707701/Oxford-students-employ-sensitivity-readers-CUT-problematic-articles-newspaper.html

I feel like wanting to be sensitive is technically a reasonable aim, but you don't want it to be your starting point, as you are likely to overdo it and be far too oversensitive.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/21/we-didnt-want-it-named-after-a-person-how-residents-of-cecil-rhodes-house-feel-about-its-new-name

Total minefield....going to just have to name everything A1, A2, A3...

From the Guardian article, " ......Virginia Woolf, whose writing has been criticised as racist and antisemitic”

My distinct recollection is that Virginia's husband, Leonard Woolf, was Jewish.

I suspect the whole of the Bloomsbury Group is going to end up cancelled at this rate

Virtually everyone who's ever been famous for anything will eventually end up being cancelled, or at any rate some group or another will claim to be offended and try. It's just the way things are going. The more tolerant and inclusive society becomes, the less tolerant and inclusive the belligerent axe grinders claim it to be - and then set out to try to make things worse again.

Well, we are already at the stage where Einstein & Gandhi -- two of the most admirable humans who have ever lived -- are being routinely dismissed as racists.

Gandhi was quite racist, however

We have two choices, either we accept that humans are made from crooked timber, and everyone has major but tolerable flaws, including sexism and racism (especially as perceived by different eras), OR we demand moral purity - by our standards - from every human with any kind of fame. or even without, and so we end up cancelling everyone

Of course the first choice is the sane option, but I fear we must go through several iterations of the insane alternative, until we wise up. Sanity will only prevail when the cancellers start getting viciously cancelled themselves - as they will. Cf Robespierre

Or we have an honest debate, stop honouring the real scumbags, and move on.

Or we could stop pandering to upper middle class student activists scoring notches on their CVs and do something that would actually help victims or the less advantaged.

It's easy to pretend that it's only spoilt student types who care about BLM etc, but that's not my experience at all. To give you an example, our daughter made a small BLM sign with a picture of Rosa Parks that we put in our window. One day last year a delivery driver, a Jamaican guy, was dropping some stuff at our house. He pointed at the sign and said that he really appreciated seeing it.

Of course it's not. But the spoilt student types pollute the genuine message.

beentheredonethat said:

Gardenwalker said:

Housing analysts agree that it very much short-term fluctuation in demand that influence house prices; with supply only influencing in the long run, and not much either as demand is quite inelastic.

Like Murder on the Orient Express, everything is “to blame” for current house prices but based on what I’ve read the rough order of culprits is something like the following:

1. Repressed interest rates
2. Increased demand (more household formation)
3. Increased demand (immigration)
4. Increased demand (property as asset class)
5. Supply side: lack of public housing
6. Supply side: planning complexity
7. Increased demand (buy to let)

Prices ex South England are actually roughly at historic averages of price:earnings.

They would be probably be at historic lows if it wasn’t for (1) and (2).

Prices in South and especially London have all 7 factors in play.

The best thing we could probably do to bring down to prices is to increase public housing in the South, along with further measures to discourage holding property as an asset versus as a home, and planning reforms to bring down the cost of land.

A couple of new towns in the london periphery may do the trick for now. Built by the government.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Black_Rook said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oxford Student Union is planning to hire 'sensitivity readers' to stop student newspapers including historic campus sheet Cherwell publishing 'problematic' articles that are 'implicitly racist or sexist'.

Officials at the student body are planning to set up a 'Student Consultancy of Sensitivity Readers' who would be elected and paid to check articles across various newspapers for signs of supposed insensitivity.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9707701/Oxford-students-employ-sensitivity-readers-CUT-problematic-articles-newspaper.html

I feel like wanting to be sensitive is technically a reasonable aim, but you don't want it to be your starting point, as you are likely to overdo it and be far too oversensitive.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/21/we-didnt-want-it-named-after-a-person-how-residents-of-cecil-rhodes-house-feel-about-its-new-name

Total minefield....going to just have to name everything A1, A2, A3...

From the Guardian article, " ......Virginia Woolf, whose writing has been criticised as racist and antisemitic”

My distinct recollection is that Virginia's husband, Leonard Woolf, was Jewish.

I suspect the whole of the Bloomsbury Group is going to end up cancelled at this rate

Virtually everyone who's ever been famous for anything will eventually end up being cancelled, or at any rate some group or another will claim to be offended and try. It's just the way things are going. The more tolerant and inclusive society becomes, the less tolerant and inclusive the belligerent axe grinders claim it to be - and then set out to try to make things worse again.

Well, we are already at the stage where Einstein & Gandhi -- two of the most admirable humans who have ever lived -- are being routinely dismissed as racists.

Gandhi was quite racist, however

We have two choices, either we accept that humans are made from crooked timber, and everyone has major but tolerable flaws, including sexism and racism (especially as perceived by different eras), OR we demand moral purity - by our standards - from every human with any kind of fame. or even without, and so we end up cancelling everyone

Of course the first choice is the sane option, but I fear we must go through several iterations of the insane alternative, until we wise up. Sanity will only prevail when the cancellers start getting viciously cancelled themselves - as they will. Cf Robespierre

Or we have an honest debate, stop honouring the real scumbags, and move on.

Or we could stop pandering to upper middle class student activists scoring notches on their CVs and do something that would actually help victims or the less advantaged.

It's easy to pretend that it's only spoilt student types who care about BLM etc, but that's not my experience at all. To give you an example, our daughter made a small BLM sign with a picture of Rosa Parks that we put in our window. One day last year a delivery driver, a Jamaican guy, was dropping some stuff at our house. He pointed at the sign and said that he really appreciated seeing it.

alex_ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

alex_ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Black_Rook said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oxford Student Union is planning to hire 'sensitivity readers' to stop student newspapers including historic campus sheet Cherwell publishing 'problematic' articles that are 'implicitly racist or sexist'.

Officials at the student body are planning to set up a 'Student Consultancy of Sensitivity Readers' who would be elected and paid to check articles across various newspapers for signs of supposed insensitivity.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9707701/Oxford-students-employ-sensitivity-readers-CUT-problematic-articles-newspaper.html

I feel like wanting to be sensitive is technically a reasonable aim, but you don't want it to be your starting point, as you are likely to overdo it and be far too oversensitive.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/21/we-didnt-want-it-named-after-a-person-how-residents-of-cecil-rhodes-house-feel-about-its-new-name

Total minefield....going to just have to name everything A1, A2, A3...

From the Guardian article, " ......Virginia Woolf, whose writing has been criticised as racist and antisemitic”

My distinct recollection is that Virginia's husband, Leonard Woolf, was Jewish.

I suspect the whole of the Bloomsbury Group is going to end up cancelled at this rate

Virtually everyone who's ever been famous for anything will eventually end up being cancelled, or at any rate some group or another will claim to be offended and try. It's just the way things are going. The more tolerant and inclusive society becomes, the less tolerant and inclusive the belligerent axe grinders claim it to be - and then set out to try to make things worse again.

Well, we are already at the stage where Einstein & Gandhi -- two of the most admirable humans who have ever lived -- are being routinely dismissed as racists.

Gandhi was quite racist, however

We have two choices, either we accept that humans are made from crooked timber, and everyone has major but tolerable flaws, including sexism and racism (especially as perceived by different eras), OR we demand moral purity - by our standards - from every human with any kind of fame. or even without, and so we end up cancelling everyone

Of course the first choice is the sane option, but I fear we must go through several iterations of the insane alternative, until we wise up. Sanity will only prevail when the cancellers start getting viciously cancelled themselves - as they will. Cf Robespierre

Or we have an honest debate, stop honouring the real scumbags, and move on.

Or we could stop pandering to upper middle class student activists scoring notches on their CVs and do something that would actually help victims or the less advantaged.

It's easy to pretend that it's only spoilt student types who care about BLM etc, but that's not my experience at all. To give you an example, our daughter made a small BLM sign with a picture of Rosa Parks that we put in our window. One day last year a delivery driver, a Jamaican guy, was dropping some stuff at our house. He pointed at the sign and said that he really appreciated seeing it.

Of course it's not. But the spoilt student types pollute the genuine message.

So ignore them.

I can and do. But the media don't, and that allows those who don't like the message to exploit the less genuine elements in an attempt to discredit the whole thing.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Black_Rook said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oxford Student Union is planning to hire 'sensitivity readers' to stop student newspapers including historic campus sheet Cherwell publishing 'problematic' articles that are 'implicitly racist or sexist'.

Officials at the student body are planning to set up a 'Student Consultancy of Sensitivity Readers' who would be elected and paid to check articles across various newspapers for signs of supposed insensitivity.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9707701/Oxford-students-employ-sensitivity-readers-CUT-problematic-articles-newspaper.html

I feel like wanting to be sensitive is technically a reasonable aim, but you don't want it to be your starting point, as you are likely to overdo it and be far too oversensitive.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/21/we-didnt-want-it-named-after-a-person-how-residents-of-cecil-rhodes-house-feel-about-its-new-name

Total minefield....going to just have to name everything A1, A2, A3...

From the Guardian article, " ......Virginia Woolf, whose writing has been criticised as racist and antisemitic”

My distinct recollection is that Virginia's husband, Leonard Woolf, was Jewish.

I suspect the whole of the Bloomsbury Group is going to end up cancelled at this rate

Virtually everyone who's ever been famous for anything will eventually end up being cancelled, or at any rate some group or another will claim to be offended and try. It's just the way things are going. The more tolerant and inclusive society becomes, the less tolerant and inclusive the belligerent axe grinders claim it to be - and then set out to try to make things worse again.

Well, we are already at the stage where Einstein & Gandhi -- two of the most admirable humans who have ever lived -- are being routinely dismissed as racists.

Gandhi was quite racist, however

We have two choices, either we accept that humans are made from crooked timber, and everyone has major but tolerable flaws, including sexism and racism (especially as perceived by different eras), OR we demand moral purity - by our standards - from every human with any kind of fame. or even without, and so we end up cancelling everyone

Of course the first choice is the sane option, but I fear we must go through several iterations of the insane alternative, until we wise up. Sanity will only prevail when the cancellers start getting viciously cancelled themselves - as they will. Cf Robespierre

Or we have an honest debate, stop honouring the real scumbags, and move on.

Or we could stop pandering to upper middle class student activists scoring notches on their CVs and do something that would actually help victims or the less advantaged.

It's easy to pretend that it's only spoilt student types who care about BLM etc, but that's not my experience at all. To give you an example, our daughter made a small BLM sign with a picture of Rosa Parks that we put in our window. One day last year a delivery driver, a Jamaican guy, was dropping some stuff at our house. He pointed at the sign and said that he really appreciated seeing it.

Gardenwalker said:

If we really wanted to shake shit up, we’d move Parliament to Edinburgh (the second capital!) while we refurbished the Palace of Westminster.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Black_Rook said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oxford Student Union is planning to hire 'sensitivity readers' to stop student newspapers including historic campus sheet Cherwell publishing 'problematic' articles that are 'implicitly racist or sexist'.

Officials at the student body are planning to set up a 'Student Consultancy of Sensitivity Readers' who would be elected and paid to check articles across various newspapers for signs of supposed insensitivity.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9707701/Oxford-students-employ-sensitivity-readers-CUT-problematic-articles-newspaper.html

I feel like wanting to be sensitive is technically a reasonable aim, but you don't want it to be your starting point, as you are likely to overdo it and be far too oversensitive.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/21/we-didnt-want-it-named-after-a-person-how-residents-of-cecil-rhodes-house-feel-about-its-new-name

Total minefield....going to just have to name everything A1, A2, A3...

From the Guardian article, " ......Virginia Woolf, whose writing has been criticised as racist and antisemitic”

My distinct recollection is that Virginia's husband, Leonard Woolf, was Jewish.

I suspect the whole of the Bloomsbury Group is going to end up cancelled at this rate

Virtually everyone who's ever been famous for anything will eventually end up being cancelled, or at any rate some group or another will claim to be offended and try. It's just the way things are going. The more tolerant and inclusive society becomes, the less tolerant and inclusive the belligerent axe grinders claim it to be - and then set out to try to make things worse again.

Well, we are already at the stage where Einstein & Gandhi -- two of the most admirable humans who have ever lived -- are being routinely dismissed as racists.

Gandhi was quite racist, however

We have two choices, either we accept that humans are made from crooked timber, and everyone has major but tolerable flaws, including sexism and racism (especially as perceived by different eras), OR we demand moral purity - by our standards - from every human with any kind of fame. or even without, and so we end up cancelling everyone

Of course the first choice is the sane option, but I fear we must go through several iterations of the insane alternative, until we wise up. Sanity will only prevail when the cancellers start getting viciously cancelled themselves - as they will. Cf Robespierre

Or we have an honest debate, stop honouring the real scumbags, and move on.

Or we could stop pandering to upper middle class student activists scoring notches on their CVs and do something that would actually help victims or the less advantaged.

It's easy to pretend that it's only spoilt student types who care about BLM etc, but that's not my experience at all. To give you an example, our daughter made a small BLM sign with a picture of Rosa Parks that we put in our window. One day last year a delivery driver, a Jamaican guy, was dropping some stuff at our house. He pointed at the sign and said that he really appreciated seeing it.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if we want to help Black people, who are under-represented in almost every profession you can name, then do something that will actually help bright Black kids grow up to be solicitors or doctors or entrpreneurs. Or we could make a big show of toppling statues and renaming buildings while keeping the top jobs safe.

Brom said:

I can’t believe 5 minutes after the match and the BBC haven’t noticed tonight’s results mean England have qualified for the last 16.

Does no one understand the format? Embarrassing

Leon said:

Brom said:

I can’t believe 5 minutes after the match and the BBC haven’t noticed tonight’s results mean England have qualified for the last 16.

Does no one understand the format? Embarrassing

it is stupidly fricking complex. And really not good for competitive games (tonight apart). Never again, please

another_richard said:

Real world versus Warwick model:

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1406996913551982593

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

Real world versus Warwick model:

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1406996913551982593

Embarrassing and getting more so by the day. July 19th can't come soon enough for Warwick.

Black_Rook said:

MaxPB said:

tlg86 said:

Oh, and England have qualified too.

Yes, two teams on three points in third means all the teams on 4 points qualify.

Now, do England and the Czechs have a contest to try to lose, given what the "reward" for winning the group actually is?

another_richard said:

Real world versus Warwick model:

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1406996913551982593

MaxPB said:

Black_Rook said:

MaxPB said:

tlg86 said:

Oh, and England have qualified too.

Yes, two teams on three points in third means all the teams on 4 points qualify.

Now, do England and the Czechs have a contest to try to lose, given what the "reward" for winning the group actually is?

Yes, a 0-0 would be perfect for us!

Black_Rook said:

beentheredonethat said:

Gardenwalker said:

Housing analysts agree that it very much short-term fluctuation in demand that influence house prices; with supply only influencing in the long run, and not much either as demand is quite inelastic.

Like Murder on the Orient Express, everything is “to blame” for current house prices but based on what I’ve read the rough order of culprits is something like the following:

1. Repressed interest rates
2. Increased demand (more household formation)
3. Increased demand (immigration)
4. Increased demand (property as asset class)
5. Supply side: lack of public housing
6. Supply side: planning complexity
7. Increased demand (buy to let)

Prices ex South England are actually roughly at historic averages of price:earnings.

They would be probably be at historic lows if it wasn’t for (1) and (2).

Prices in South and especially London have all 7 factors in play.

The best thing we could probably do to bring down to prices is to increase public housing in the South, along with further measures to discourage holding property as an asset versus as a home, and planning reforms to bring down the cost of land.

A couple of new towns in the london periphery may do the trick for now. Built by the government.

Chesham and Amersham sound like ideal candidates for expansion.

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

eek said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

eek said:

ping said:

That labour poster is depressing.

Will we ever build enough homes so that our young people can grow up and have, like, families?

The country is committing a slow suicide.

F£&k the nimbys.

It's all part of the grand levelling up plans.

The only place the young will be able to afford to live is in the Red Wall seats and the jobs will follow once it becomes obvious that the workers no longer exist elsewhere.

The internal adverts for Treasury North focus on the fact you can have a new 4-5 bedroom detached house for less than a 3 bed semi near London.

With a commute time in minutes rather than hours.

Quite right. Why concrete over the rural south with rabbit-warren houses and ring-road DIY stores when there is plenty of cheap accommodation up north. Okay, you probably won't be able to boast at dinner parties about the tripling of your house's value over the last month (which is all these people really care about) but tough... if you want your own place then go where you can afford it; don't despoil everywhere else.

And you have the audacity to have flag symbolising free movement?

Millions are welcome to come here, and serve you a coffee but don't they dare despoil your view.

The EU and EU citizens serving coffee didn't attempt to sweep aside the planning laws and give developers carte blanche. Boris - and it seems most Brexit advocates - are. So what gives? This government is more a threat to my view than free movement ever was.

In the last decade the UK population has increased from 61 million to 67 million. A 10% increase in population in a decade due to free movement.

You may be struggling in your limited mind to connect the dots, but those people need somewhere to live. Funny that!

The developers need carte blanche to fix the mess that regulated housing combined with free movement has disastrously created.

I don't see 6 million EU immigrants sleeping in cardboard boxes to be honest. But if the EU immigrant, like anyone else, can't afford to live somewhere he should relocate to somewhere he can. (I'm applying a simple, free-market analysis as opposed to your crude, knee-jerk, government-must-act statism.)

Except they can afford it. The developers are prepared to build, they're prepared to pay and landowners are prepared to sell to developers.

The state doesn't need to do anything except butt out and mind its own business rather than telling people what they can and can't do with their money and their land.

You wanted people here, people being here means them building on land. Immigrants are for life and not just for lattes.

So everyone gets a say except the people who live in the area and have to see their environment and way of life obliterated. You're a Stalinist!

I've you want a view you need to own the view.

If you don't want 1000 new houses surrounding your village all you will need to do is bid more than the developers are and you can keep the land the way it is.

Which will, of course, be utterly impossible given the vast sums involved. But anyway: I've had enough of trying to save the fields and lanes of rural England from the barbarous hoards whose only god is Mammon - far too depressing for me. I shall stride instead to the furthest prong of my vast estate and shoot at the newbuilds across the bypass with a catapult.

Oh diddums, its impossible given the vast sums involved?

Oh well, what was it you said? If you "can't afford to live somewhere" maybe you "should relocate to somewhere you can". That was your attitude wasn't it?

What's sauce for the goose etc

What an absurd comparison. When they buy up land for housing estates they pay hundreds of millions - many magnitudes beyond what a normal individual could afford as a counter measure. There's no moral equivalence at all to saying that people shouldn't expect the state to rig things to allow them to afford property, especially if that screws over the environment, the rural idyll and already existing communities. Your position is that Britain should be concreted over come what may. I just find that morally bleak.

Far from it. Currently 5.5% of Britain is concreted over for housing. If it goes to 6.5% that's neither here nor there and takes into account the population increase you welcomed. Britain would still have a green and pleasant land.

There isn't the desire or demand it concrete over the the whole country. It should only be concreted over where people pay to concrete over it, which they'll only do because they're in this country and need somewhere to live!

Denying people somewhere to live is much more bleak. If you were so xenophobic and hate filled that you thought people coming over despoiled the area why didn't you think that through sooner?

Sorry. But I in no way ascribe to your 'immigrants came over 'ere, took our housing' mantra. So I'd be grateful if you didn't proclaim that I did.

It's not my mantra. I welcome people coming here to improve their lives and contribute to our country. I welcome them getting a house built to live in.

You're the one bemoaning people coming over and despoiling the area. That's your language not mine.

Actually immigrants never crossed my mind. You raised the subject when started going on about free movement. I was bemoaning rather the native-born British, who demand a property to own in the south - and call people with environmental concerns NIMBYs - but won't consider living somewhere else in the country more affordable to them. You may think they're entitled to live to absolutely wherever they like; I'm more of the view that people should learn to cut their cloth accordingly.

alex_ said:

Gallowgate said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

Real world versus Warwick model:

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1406996913551982593

Embarrassing and getting more so by the day. July 19th can't come soon enough for Warwick.

We need our Warwick University representative to stand up for Coventry's finest University. @HYUFD ?

I went to Warwick. Went back a couple of years ago for the first time in 20 years. Most of it hadn't changed. That meant that bits of it still looked like they did in the seventies. Student Union was a complete dump. Think most of the bars had closed.

Not sure where all the money's gone. Felt like they were now a housing company.