Two Lessons Learnt – politicalbetting.com

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RobD said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.

The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.

From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.

The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.

I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".

Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.

For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.

I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.

I think it’s because British children are more attractive than their Continental peers.

Tempted though I am to flag that comment, I don't suppose the moderators would take any notice.

Pretty sure it was posted in jest. And he's the site administrator.

Whooshy McWhooshface

Who knows, they might have thought he was being serious.

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

StuartDickson said:

williamglenn said:

StuartDickson said:

Sign of the Brexit times:

We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).

According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.

Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.

Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?

Stuart’s bias = good
BritNat bias = bad

Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?

I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)

Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.

But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.

British isn't sloppy.

Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?

How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.

That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.

British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.

Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?

No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.

Let me rephrase my comment then:

Aren't Britain and the UK synonymous? If so, what's the issue?

No, because Britain is often used = GB. As you yourself demonstrated. Hence the ambiguity.

If you want to be pedantic British would describe anything from UK+Ireland, since the are the British Isles. Still, I really don't see how it's a huge issue. A product from anywhere in the UK could be described as British.

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

StuartDickson said:

williamglenn said:

StuartDickson said:

Sign of the Brexit times:

We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).

According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.

Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.

Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?

Stuart’s bias = good
BritNat bias = bad

Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?

I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)

Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.

But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.

British isn't sloppy.

Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?

How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.

That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.

British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.

Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?

No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.

Let me rephrase my comment then:

Aren't Britain and the UK synonymous? If so, what's the issue?

No, because Britain is often used = GB. As you yourself demonstrated. Hence the ambiguity.

If you want to be pedantic British would describe anything from UK+Ireland, since the are the British Isles. Still, I really don't see how it's a huge issue. A product from anywhere in the UK could be described as British.

They are not the British Isle any more. The Isles of Britain and Ireland, or Ireland and Britain, to taste.

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.

The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.

From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.

The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.

I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".

Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.

For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.

I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.

" I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. "

If I was to be nasty, I'd say you were blind to it, in the same way you were blind to the evils of Communism at the same age.

But to be serious: a couple of dear friends of mine have committed suicide after abuse. One was abused by a family member, one by a religious figure. One was abused in the UK, another in Oz. The earliest of these occurred when I was a mid-teenager, and I was ill-equipped to talk about it or get help for her. When I talked to the lovely reverend at school, he was very wishy-washy about it. When I needed help, he let me down. She died a few months later.

I am still angry about that.

Even then, I thought it was unusual. What opened my eyes to it was three conversations I had whilst at uni. A female friend of long acquaintance, the same age as me, told me that she had been abused by a member of her family. Various details fitted. A few weeks later I talked to another female friend in another part of the country, and when I mentioned this she said she had also been abused. I started carefully chatting to friends about it, and a third admitted she had been raped as an early teen.

I am slightly cynical, but even then, but their stories *seemed* real. In one of those cases, when I queried it with her dad, her family knew about it and had covered it up "to keep the peace" or somesuch. This was in a part of the country where abuse by a different group of abusers has made headlines.

That is what we are dealing with. Abuse of all sorts are icebergs: there is a heck of a lot more of it hidden than is visible above the surface. I see no reason why Denmark would be unusual.

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.

The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.

From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.

The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.

I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".

Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.

For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.

I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.

" I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. "

If I was to be nasty, I'd say you were blind to it, in the same way you were blind to the evils of Communism at the same age.

But to be serious: a couple of dear friends of mine have committed suicide after abuse. One was abused by a family member, one by a religious figure. One was abused in the UK, another in Oz. The earliest of these occurred when I was a mid-teenager, and I was ill-equipped to talk about it or get help for her. When I talked to the lovely reverend at school, he was very wishy-washy about it. When I needed help, he let me down. She died a few months later.

I am still angry about that.

Even then, I thought it was unusual. What opened my eyes to it was three conversations I had whilst at uni. A female friend of long acquaintance, the same age as me, told me that she had been abused by a member of her family. Various details fitted. A few weeks later I talked to another female friend in another part of the country, and when I mentioned this she said she had also been abused. I started carefully chatting to friends about it, and a third admitted she had been raped as an early teen.

I am slightly cynical, but even then, but their stories *seemed* real. In one of those cases, when I queried it with her dad, her family knew about it and had covered it up "to keep the peace" or somesuch. This was in a part of the country where abuse by a different group of abusers has made headlines.

That is what we are dealing with. Abuse of all sorts are icebergs: there is a heck of a lot more of it hidden than is visible above the surface. I see no reason why Denmark would be unusual.

I agree. Nick Palmer is surely a nice chap but he has weird tunnel vision, and appears to miss huge areas of human behaviour/politcs/society blatantly apparent to everyone else

Child abuse is universal. Some deny it more than others, some cover it up better than others, some tolerate it more than others. But it is everywhere

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.

The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.

From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.

The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.

I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".

Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.

For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.

I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.

Pagan2 said:

Foss said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.

The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.

From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.

The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.

I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".

Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.

For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.

I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.

Given that child pornography was legal in Denmark until the 80s that seems remarkable.

An this as well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-32411241

implies there is a fair amount of what most people would call divergent sexual behaviour in denmark

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.

The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.

From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.

The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.

I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".

Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.

For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.

I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.

" I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. "

If I was to be nasty, I'd say you were blind to it, in the same way you were blind to the evils of Communism at the same age.

But to be serious: a couple of dear friends of mine have committed suicide after abuse. One was abused by a family member, one by a religious figure. One was abused in the UK, another in Oz. The earliest of these occurred when I was a mid-teenager, and I was ill-equipped to talk about it or get help for her. When I talked to the lovely reverend at school, he was very wishy-washy about it. When I needed help, he let me down. She died a few months later.

I am still angry about that.

Even then, I thought it was unusual. What opened my eyes to it was three conversations I had whilst at uni. A female friend of long acquaintance, the same age as me, told me that she had been abused by a member of her family. Various details fitted. A few weeks later I talked to another female friend in another part of the country, and when I mentioned this she said she had also been abused. I started carefully chatting to friends about it, and a third admitted she had been raped as an early teen.

I am slightly cynical, but even then, but their stories *seemed* real. In one of those cases, when I queried it with her dad, her family knew about it and had covered it up "to keep the peace" or somesuch. This was in a part of the country where abuse by a different group of abusers has made headlines.

That is what we are dealing with. Abuse of all sorts are icebergs: there is a heck of a lot more of it hidden than is visible above the surface. I see no reason why Denmark would be unusual.

I agree. Nick Palmer is surely a nice chap but he has weird tunnel vision, and appears to miss huge areas of human behaviour/politcs/society blatantly apparent to everyone else

Child abuse is universal. Some deny it more than others, some cover it up better than others, some tolerate it more than others. But it is everywhere

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

Foss said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.

The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.

From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.

The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.

I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".

Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.

For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.

I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.

Given that child pornography was legal in Denmark until the 80s that seems remarkable.

An this as well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-32411241

implies there is a fair amount of what most people would call divergent sexual behaviour in denmark

Plus this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49320260

SandraMc said:

I have been wondering if there was going to be a thread on this topic. My interest is two fold: in the 80s I was deputy editor of a small magazine about social services. I covered several child abuse cases in local authority homes. One thing I noticed then was that "independent" investigations into what went wrong were often carried out by directors or retired directors of other authorities, who often had had similar scandals in their own departments. There seemed to be an old boys network covering each others' backs.

I then had a child with special needs and from being a supposed pundit on social services, I became a consumer. I was shocked by the "them and us" culture I found; several of the social workers I had to deal with were patronising and told me I didn't understand if I complained. It was almost a form of "gaslighting"; the attitude was the problem isn't us, it is you.

These are important issues. I don't have any easy answers but like the Cressida Dick thread, I feel it should be debated sensibly and I am disappointed that people are indulging in cheap jokes about such a sensitive and important issue.

Carnyx said:

Aslan said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

StuartDickson said:

williamglenn said:

StuartDickson said:

Sign of the Brexit times:

We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).

According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.

Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.

Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?

Stuart’s bias = good
BritNat bias = bad

Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?

I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)

Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.

But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.

British isn't sloppy.

Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?

How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.

That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.

British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.

Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?

No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.

Let me rephrase my comment then:

Aren't Britain and the UK synonymous? If so, what's the issue?

No, because Britain is often used = GB. As you yourself demonstrated. Hence the ambiguity.

If you want to be pedantic British would describe anything from UK+Ireland, since the are the British Isles. Still, I really don't see how it's a huge issue. A product from anywhere in the UK could be described as British.

They are not the British Isle any more. The Isles of Britain and Ireland, or Ireland and Britain, to taste.

I'm pretty sure that name is used to describe the islands, at least in the UK.

It is ridiculous not to use the term British Isles. The term, or variants of it, is thousands of years old. No one gets uppity over the "Irish sea".

It was Britannia plus Hibernia 2000 years ago, so not "British Isles" at all. Only the British bit was Britannia, and 'British' is found today as Welsh and Cornish.

On the Irish Sea, that is a water body. It's common practice to use sound.channel/sea plus the name of the smaller entity demarcated - thus English Channel, Irish Sea, Sound of Jura.

But 'British Isles' is about the islands themselves and plainly an anachronism. You could just as well talk of going to the Society Isles.

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......

A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.

Only on PB eh!

Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British standup comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.

I think there are 3 main reasons:-

1. Sexual attraction to children is probably more widespread than we care to admit. The abuse is done not just by a few horrible perverts but by lots of apparently respectable people. This is hard to admit.

2. Power - where people have it they will abuse it unless they are kept in check. By their own conscience/moral code / by rules / by challenge and by social taboos. We rely IMO too much on rules and procedures and too little on conscience / social taboos and challenge.

3. We don't value children in the right way - there is a tendency to sentimentalise and treat as mini-adults/spoil even rather than guide and teach and protect and care for. Also the sorts of children who end up in care are often horrible - because brutalised and uncared for - and difficult and so it takes immense patience and love and kindness to help them. There is probably also a class issue here. We don't value this work or these children and so it is easy to see why they become prey for abusers.

As to those who are complicit, challenge and speaking up and blowing the whistle are hard. What is the reward? The downsides can be considerable. We value loyalty - to the family, group, friends, team institution etc - over individual courage and conscience. So it is easy to see why people choose the quiet life. A few metaphorical executions of senior staff pour encourager les autres would not go amiss (what the hell was Blair thinking making Hodge Minister for Children?!). But even there we get it wrong - see Sharon Shoosmith.

Our children are our offering to the future. We need to cherish them. All of them.

Cheers.
1. Yes. Very tricky area. Youth is alluring. It doesn't suddenly become so at the age of consent.
2. Totally agree. Culture and role models are more important than structures, systems and procedures.
3. That's what I was getting at. Respecting kids is different to liking/loving them.

Being attracted to pre-pubescent children is decidedly weird. Being attracted to adolescents is not. Most of us can remember when we were attracted to other adolescents.

It’s plain that lots of people find children attractive. Think of those ghastly US child beauty pageants, or twerking, or the way thousands of readers have completely misunderstood Lolita, or the way we’re meant to sympathise with Hector in The History Boys.

Yes, sexual attraction to young children is a terrible affliction. Somebody who has it, but manages to keep it wholly inside, and thus harms nobody, I've always thought worthy of great admiration. Of course by definition one never gets to know who such people are.

A rare case where we agree.

The paradox is that some of these people USED to be scoutmasters, teachers, youth workers - and they GEUINELY sublimated their desires into just working with kids, that was enough, they repressed any sexuality. Perhaps the worst that happened was an over-affectionate hug once in a while - no harm done

Now we are so hyper-vigilant these well-meaning people would never go near such a job - unless they are criminally and evilly deviant (beyond sex) so in some ways the problem is worse

When you drop the antiwokery (aka "hands off my privilege") crusade and all the "eating mussels in a pub" nonsense, I'd say we do agree on the occasional thing.

Although perhaps not here, since I'm not sure we have become too vigilant on this matter. But I get your point.

To be more cheerful, there is potentially a solution to this ancient human problem - the perverse sexual desire for children


Soon there will be pretty good sex bots. If we can get over our innate revulsion, we will be able to manufracture them for pedophiles, who can go away and do their business to a robot, and no human every gets hurt, and indeed a lot of real human children will be spared future pain

My worry - and this applies to a lot of sexbot tech - is that puritans will say "even manufacturing fake kid sexbots for these deviants is wrong, so we won't do that either". Some are already making that argument

A rather more specific argument might be that it gives them ideas, and legitimises and encourages their desires? Which might then cross over into real flesh and blood.

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

StuartDickson said:

williamglenn said:

StuartDickson said:

Sign of the Brexit times:

We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).

According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.

Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.

Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?

Stuart’s bias = good
BritNat bias = bad

Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?

I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)

Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.

But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.

British isn't sloppy.

Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?

How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.

That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.

British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.

Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?

No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.

Let me rephrase my comment then:

Aren't Britain and the UK synonymous? If so, what's the issue?

No, because Britain is often used = GB. As you yourself demonstrated. Hence the ambiguity.

If you want to be pedantic British would describe anything from UK+Ireland, since the are the British Isles. Still, I really don't see how it's a huge issue. A product from anywhere in the UK could be described as British.

They are not the British Isle any more. The Isles of Britain and Ireland, or Ireland and Britain, to taste.

I'm pretty sure that name is used to describe the islands, at least in the UK.

ping said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thank you Cyclefree for this passionately written header. I would like to see our whole society and government transformed to put the interests of children and young people first. Sexual abuse is the most flagrant and disgusting - and for most of us unfathomable - way in which children are hurt in our society. But poverty, neglect and an education system that fails to meet children's needs are equally damning failures.

I could not agree more and just cannot start to understand why anyone would abuse a child in any form whatsoever

There is no penalty in my view strong enough to deal with anyone who abuses a child

That’s basically my view, although I wouldn’t quite go all out hang-em-and-flog-em.

Serious crimes deserve serious penalties, though.

There is also a place for strong social taboos. Comments like Leon’s, upthread, need to be called out.

Call me a puritan all you like, Leon, but I think you’re on a slippery slope to rationalising disgusting abuse.

Both child abuse, and the inclination are disgusting. That should be a firm red line in our society and our public debate.

ping said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thank you Cyclefree for this passionately written header. I would like to see our whole society and government transformed to put the interests of children and young people first. Sexual abuse is the most flagrant and disgusting - and for most of us unfathomable - way in which children are hurt in our society. But poverty, neglect and an education system that fails to meet children's needs are equally damning failures.

I could not agree more and just cannot start to understand why anyone would abuse a child in any form whatsoever

There is no penalty in my view strong enough to deal with anyone who abuses a child

That’s basically my view, although I wouldn’t quite go all out hang-em-and-flog-em.

Serious crimes deserve serious penalties, though.

There is also a place for strong social taboos. Comments like Leon’s, upthread, need to be called out.

Call me a puritan all you like, Leon, but I think you’re on a slippery slope to rationalising disgusting abuse.

Both child abuse, and the inclination are disgusting. That should be a firm red line in our society and our public debate.

Leon said:

ping said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thank you Cyclefree for this passionately written header. I would like to see our whole society and government transformed to put the interests of children and young people first. Sexual abuse is the most flagrant and disgusting - and for most of us unfathomable - way in which children are hurt in our society. But poverty, neglect and an education system that fails to meet children's needs are equally damning failures.

I could not agree more and just cannot start to understand why anyone would abuse a child in any form whatsoever

There is no penalty in my view strong enough to deal with anyone who abuses a child

That’s basically my view, although I wouldn’t quite go all out hang-em-and-flog-em.

Serious crimes deserve serious penalties, though.

There is also a place for strong social taboos. Comments like Leon’s, upthread, need to be called out.

Call me a puritan all you like, Leon, but I think you’re on a slippery slope to rationalising disgusting abuse.

Both child abuse, and the inclination are disgusting. That should be a firm red line in our society and our public debate.

What on earth are you referring to????


My remark about the monk in southwest England?

FFS, that was sarcasm. I thought the giveaway might have been

"All seems perfectly fine to me. Harmless fun for everyone."

That was me being sarcastic. That monk was clearly sexually exploiting a child. I sometimes forget that a lot of people on PB are a bit, ah, literal, perhaps I should use more SARCASTIC EMOJIS?

FWIW the school I am referring to had a terrific abuse scandal years later and several monks and others went to prison. Good

TOPPING said:

700k pings last week.

Added to however many the week before (620k). And the week before that.

That's a fair old chunk of people out of the workforce.

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Don't worry, if it was a European company rather than a British one it would be completely altruistic with no concern for profit and Brexit Britain's GSK and AZ would be evil profit seeking types who deserve to go bankrupt.

And as so often the fake news gets all the coverage, where as the correction / accurate reports hardly get mentioned. AZN will be remember by many as that one that one which was dangerous and ineffective.

And now Australia are sitting on millions of doses, as the damn virus finally takes hold there, because a bunch of idiots listened to Macron and that German newspaper, and now there’s more anti-vax nonsense down under, than there is the the States.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/29/eu-destroyed-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine-dream/

Leon said:

The idea that "Denmark" will be uniquely resistant is piffle

Leon said:

jayfdee said:

Someone should investigate the so called "Christian Brothers".
They were not very Christian, and ran a few schools around Liverpool, maybe elsewhere, but now they have gone, thankfully.
I do not want to be specific, to avoid problems with OGH.

I don't think you need to be too careful in this case. There have been many publicised examples now

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/dear-brother-o-neill-a-former-christian-brothers-pupil-writes-1.2879416

I have a couple of friends who were at a CB school in southern England. Their complain was not so much sexual abuse but brutal violence (probably linked, psychologically, of course)

jayfdee said:

Leon said:

jayfdee said:

Someone should investigate the so called "Christian Brothers".
They were not very Christian, and ran a few schools around Liverpool, maybe elsewhere, but now they have gone, thankfully.
I do not want to be specific, to avoid problems with OGH.

I don't think you need to be too careful in this case. There have been many publicised examples now

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/dear-brother-o-neill-a-former-christian-brothers-pupil-writes-1.2879416

I have a couple of friends who were at a CB school in southern England. Their complain was not so much sexual abuse but brutal violence (probably linked, psychologically, of course)

Yes, there was brutal violence, but also sexual abuse,beware during gym lessons if a brother called you out to the changing rooms, to discuss your exam results.
The brutal stuff was just them getting off, it stopped when you reached about 15 as we were big enough to plant them.

rottenborough said:

Lizzie Dearden
@lizziedearden
·
4h
Breaking: The RNLI has recorded a 2,000% increase in donations in a single day amid a surge in support over rescues of migrant boats

Criticism by Nigel Farage and others sparked an unprecedented flood of donations, including over £200,000 yesterday alone


Up yours Farage!!!

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......

A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.

Only on PB eh!

Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British standup comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.

I think there are 3 main reasons:-

1. Sexual attraction to children is probably more widespread than we care to admit. The abuse is done not just by a few horrible perverts but by lots of apparently respectable people. This is hard to admit.

2. Power - where people have it they will abuse it unless they are kept in check. By their own conscience/moral code / by rules / by challenge and by social taboos. We rely IMO too much on rules and procedures and too little on conscience / social taboos and challenge.

3. We don't value children in the right way - there is a tendency to sentimentalise and treat as mini-adults/spoil even rather than guide and teach and protect and care for. Also the sorts of children who end up in care are often horrible - because brutalised and uncared for - and difficult and so it takes immense patience and love and kindness to help them. There is probably also a class issue here. We don't value this work or these children and so it is easy to see why they become prey for abusers.

As to those who are complicit, challenge and speaking up and blowing the whistle are hard. What is the reward? The downsides can be considerable. We value loyalty - to the family, group, friends, team institution etc - over individual courage and conscience. So it is easy to see why people choose the quiet life. A few metaphorical executions of senior staff pour encourager les autres would not go amiss (what the hell was Blair thinking making Hodge Minister for Children?!). But even there we get it wrong - see Sharon Shoosmith.

Our children are our offering to the future. We need to cherish them. All of them.

Cheers.
1. Yes. Very tricky area. Youth is alluring. It doesn't suddenly become so at the age of consent.
2. Totally agree. Culture and role models are more important than structures, systems and procedures.
3. That's what I was getting at. Respecting kids is different to liking/loving them.

Being attracted to pre-pubescent children is decidedly weird. Being attracted to adolescents is not. Most of us can remember when we were attracted to other adolescents.

It’s plain that lots of people find children attractive. Think of those ghastly US child beauty pageants, or twerking, or the way thousands of readers have completely misunderstood Lolita, or the way we’re meant to sympathise with Hector in The History Boys.

Yes, sexual attraction to young children is a terrible affliction. Somebody who has it, but manages to keep it wholly inside, and thus harms nobody, I've always thought worthy of great admiration. Of course by definition one never gets to know who such people are.

A rare case where we agree.

The paradox is that some of these people USED to be scoutmasters, teachers, youth workers - and they GEUINELY sublimated their desires into just working with kids, that was enough, they repressed any sexuality. Perhaps the worst that happened was an over-affectionate hug once in a while - no harm done

Now we are so hyper-vigilant these well-meaning people would never go near such a job - unless they are criminally and evilly deviant (beyond sex) so in some ways the problem is worse

When you drop the antiwokery (aka "hands off my privilege") crusade and all the "eating mussels in a pub" nonsense, I'd say we do agree on the occasional thing.

Although perhaps not here, since I'm not sure we have become too vigilant on this matter. But I get your point.

To be more cheerful, there is potentially a solution to this ancient human problem - the perverse sexual desire for children


Soon there will be pretty good sex bots. If we can get over our innate revulsion, we will be able to manufracture them for pedophiles, who can go away and do their business to a robot, and no human every gets hurt, and indeed a lot of real human children will be spared future pain

My worry - and this applies to a lot of sexbot tech - is that puritans will say "even manufacturing fake kid sexbots for these deviants is wrong, so we won't do that either". Some are already making that argument

A rather more specific argument might be that it gives them ideas, and legitimises and encourages their desires? Which might then cross over into real flesh and blood.

Yes I've seen that argument too, but if these sex bots completely satisfy the pedophiles, then surely this is a trivial concern in comparison to the real life children who will be saved from future horrific abuse?

At the same time we could raise the sentence for real life abuse to instant death.

"You have an alternative. A robot. If you continue to prey on real kids we electrocute you."

I might sound facetious but I'm not. if we can overcome our instinctive repulsion, there is a solution here

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am always a bit sceptical when we hear x charity got 1000% more donations than their usual daily donation or a tunnocks teacakes sales through the roof or people are boycotting some shop because of some outrage....if in 6-12 months time, if the difference over the entire period is actually any different.

If you spread last year's donations equally over the year, I think it corresponds to a 40% increase. Of course it will be more lumpy than that.

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Kamski is usually sensible, but on this simply wrong.
Of course large pharma are profit driven organisations, but the idea they decided to set up a vaccines business for commercial reasons, on the back of an unproven, non profit vaccine - and with any failure destined to be a very public one - is absurd.

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Don't worry, if it was a European company rather than a British one it would be completely altruistic with no concern for profit and Brexit Britain's GSK and AZ would be evil profit seeking types who deserve to go bankrupt.

And as so often the fake news gets all the coverage, where as the correction / accurate reports hardly get mentioned. AZN will be remember by many as that one that one which was dangerous and ineffective.

And now Australia are sitting on millions of doses, as the damn virus finally takes hold there, because a bunch of idiots listened to Macron and that German newspaper, and now there’s more anti-vax nonsense down under, than there is the the States.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/29/eu-destroyed-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine-dream/

ping said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thank you Cyclefree for this passionately written header. I would like to see our whole society and government transformed to put the interests of children and young people first. Sexual abuse is the most flagrant and disgusting - and for most of us unfathomable - way in which children are hurt in our society. But poverty, neglect and an education system that fails to meet children's needs are equally damning failures.

I could not agree more and just cannot start to understand why anyone would abuse a child in any form whatsoever

There is no penalty in my view strong enough to deal with anyone who abuses a child

That’s basically my view, although I wouldn’t quite go all out hang-em-and-flog-em.

Serious crimes deserve serious penalties, though.

There is also a place for strong social taboos. Comments like Leon’s, upthread, need to be called out.

Call me a puritan all you like, Leon, but I think you’re on a slippery slope to rationalising disgusting abuse.

Both child abuse, and the inclination are disgusting. That should be a firm red line in our society and our public debate.

FrancisUrquhart said:

RH1992 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

31,117 cases, 85 deaths.

Incoming media panic that cases up again today vs yesterday (when still down vs same day last week).

The rate of decrease is still around 36-37%, so no real change in the trajectory, but I bet Sky News will be along with a breaking news tweet that iSage will jump on.

I am a little perturbed by Tim Spector's comments yesterday that the ZOE app isn't seeing the same reduction and he had a number of hypothesis why official case numbers have dropped and that doesn't mean that actual cases in the wild have dropped. Especially as in the past he has normally been one of the more optimistic to call a wave over.

However, at the same time, due to the now total mismatch been the survey group of ZOE i.e. dominated by people who are vaccinated / partially vaccinated, because Piers Corbyn isn't going to sign up to an app that collects your self reported health data, ZOE algorithm has had to have a massive tweak, so it could be for the first time that now ZOE data isn't anywhere near as useful as before widespread vaccination.

kinabalu said:

ping said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Thank you Cyclefree for this passionately written header. I would like to see our whole society and government transformed to put the interests of children and young people first. Sexual abuse is the most flagrant and disgusting - and for most of us unfathomable - way in which children are hurt in our society. But poverty, neglect and an education system that fails to meet children's needs are equally damning failures.

I could not agree more and just cannot start to understand why anyone would abuse a child in any form whatsoever

There is no penalty in my view strong enough to deal with anyone who abuses a child

That’s basically my view, although I wouldn’t quite go all out hang-em-and-flog-em.

Serious crimes deserve serious penalties, though.

There is also a place for strong social taboos. Comments like Leon’s, upthread, need to be called out.

Call me a puritan all you like, Leon, but I think you’re on a slippery slope to rationalising disgusting abuse.

Both child abuse, and the inclination are disgusting. That should be a firm red line in our society and our public debate.

Not going into bat for perverts but -

A fantasy not acted upon is completely different to one that is. The border between internal and external is fundamental. For me this applies across the board. I don't see why sexual attraction to children should be an exception. It's the act and ONLY the act which is a problem for society.

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Kamski is usually sensible, but on this simply wrong.
Of course large pharma are profit driven organisations, but the idea they decided to set up a vaccines business for commercial reasons, on the back of an unproven, non profit vaccine - and with any failure destined to be a very public one - is absurd.

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Kamski is usually sensible, but on this simply wrong.
Of course large pharma are profit driven organisations, but the idea they decided to set up a vaccines business for commercial reasons, on the back of an unproven, non profit vaccine - and with any failure destined to be a very public one - is absurd.

This will just infuriate furKamskither, but the animus in the EU Establishment against AZ really was driven - in part - by Brexit, and the ironic thing is that Kamksi's wild and one-eyed refusal to see any of this just proves the point

One has to remember the extent to which the EU and the EU elite had lost their mind, back when all this was happening. One night the EU Commission unilaterally imposed a hard border ACROSS Ireland to prevent legally contracted vaccine exports to the UK - without asking Ireland

At that point I don't think they even realised that most of the UK's initial supplies were from Pfizer and they became fixated on the idea that they had somehow been screwed over by the UK on AstraZeneca.

pigeon said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Don't worry, if it was a European company rather than a British one it would be completely altruistic with no concern for profit and Brexit Britain's GSK and AZ would be evil profit seeking types who deserve to go bankrupt.

And as so often the fake news gets all the coverage, where as the correction / accurate reports hardly get mentioned. AZN will be remember by many as that one that one which was dangerous and ineffective.

And now Australia are sitting on millions of doses, as the damn virus finally takes hold there, because a bunch of idiots listened to Macron and that German newspaper, and now there’s more anti-vax nonsense down under, than there is the the States.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/29/eu-destroyed-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine-dream/

The situation in Sydney is catastrophic. It looks increasingly as if what is a very harsh lockdown (reportedly featuring, in the worst affected areas, no moving more than 5km from your home for most purposes, severe restrictions on who is still allowed to go to work, masks even outdoors with steep fines for non-compliance, and police enforcement backed up by the army) still isn't enough to stamp out Delta.

Australia's vaccine drive, which is the only possible means out of the trap given that lockdown doesn't achieve the Zero Covid that politicians expect, yet nobody dare let it go for fear of a massacre, is hopeless. Supplies of mRNA vaccines are extremely limited, and AZ is almost useless because the media and the Australian equivalent of the JCVI have, between them, so thoroughly destroyed its reputation that almost nobody will accept it.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were still stuck in lockdown at the end of the year.

Malmesbury said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Kamski is usually sensible, but on this simply wrong.
Of course large pharma are profit driven organisations, but the idea they decided to set up a vaccines business for commercial reasons, on the back of an unproven, non profit vaccine - and with any failure destined to be a very public one - is absurd.

This will just infuriate furKamskither, but the animus in the EU Establishment against AZ really was driven - in part - by Brexit, and the ironic thing is that Kamksi's wild and one-eyed refusal to see any of this just proves the point

One has to remember the extent to which the EU and the EU elite had lost their mind, back when all this was happening. One night the EU Commission unilaterally imposed a hard border ACROSS Ireland to prevent legally contracted vaccine exports to the UK - without asking Ireland

At that point I don't think they even realised that most of the UK's initial supplies were from Pfizer and they became fixated on the idea that they had somehow been screwed over by the UK on AstraZeneca.

One of the things that we were reminded of in this, is that world leaders don't really get folders with The Real Answers handed to them in their security briefings etc.

So when they read a stupid column in the paper saying that the UK was hiding all the vaccines in the basement of the Dean Street Pizza Express, that became their belief.....

They get warmed over bullshit that someone saw in the paper/read on Twitter etc. Probably we would be better off if they read PB.

CarlottaVance said:

kamski said:

there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Not enough profit in a "not for profit vaccine"?

You think?

How many have died and will die because of EU politicians and journalist posturing?

Notably the most recent study into AZ vs Pfizer on blood clots was done by the EMA - who have played a straight bat and held their heads while many around them were losing theirs.

Malmesbury said:

pigeon said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

AZ hinting it may exit the vaccines business:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/

Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.

Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.

Sorry but that’s bollocks. They offered to vaccinate the world on a non-profit basis, in the face of a global pandemic, only to see their reputation trashed for political and protectionist reasons.

Don't worry, if it was a European company rather than a British one it would be completely altruistic with no concern for profit and Brexit Britain's GSK and AZ would be evil profit seeking types who deserve to go bankrupt.

And as so often the fake news gets all the coverage, where as the correction / accurate reports hardly get mentioned. AZN will be remember by many as that one that one which was dangerous and ineffective.

And now Australia are sitting on millions of doses, as the damn virus finally takes hold there, because a bunch of idiots listened to Macron and that German newspaper, and now there’s more anti-vax nonsense down under, than there is the the States.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/29/eu-destroyed-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine-dream/

The situation in Sydney is catastrophic. It looks increasingly as if what is a very harsh lockdown (reportedly featuring, in the worst affected areas, no moving more than 5km from your home for most purposes, severe restrictions on who is still allowed to go to work, masks even outdoors with steep fines for non-compliance, and police enforcement backed up by the army) still isn't enough to stamp out Delta.

Australia's vaccine drive, which is the only possible means out of the trap given that lockdown doesn't achieve the Zero Covid that politicians expect, yet nobody dare let it go for fear of a massacre, is hopeless. Supplies of mRNA vaccines are extremely limited, and AZ is almost useless because the media and the Australian equivalent of the JCVI have, between them, so thoroughly destroyed its reputation that almost nobody will accept it.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were still stuck in lockdown at the end of the year.

If R is a as high for Delta as some have claimed, then it is worth remembering that we had a long, slow clawback from the previous variant in the first lockdown. Effective R never got much below 0.8 in the UK.

While these things aren't linear, that looks horribly like lockdowns aren't powerful enough to pull R below 1 for Delta....