It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
She would have despised Rees-Mogg
I wonder who she would have rated out of the current/recent cabinets? Not JRM, for sure. Not Johnson for anything serious. Saj, probably. Hunt, I imagine. Bear in mind also that she did believe in richesse oblige at a personal level, even if she created an economy which allowed people to accumulate oodles of cash and not give much back to society. (See her remarks on the Good Samaritan.)
I think she would be spinning in her grave if she knew the terrible depth that the current "fuck business" Tory Party has descended to
Yes, but it does depend which one of her is down there, the small state, free market modernizer or the bombastic sentimental flag waver.
I think she proved that it was perfectly possible to be both.
And one of the things that la Thatch intuitively understood was that if you wanted to wave the flag and mean it, you needed some national wealth to back that up. And more generally, that reality is always preferable to rhetoric.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
The government has been hiding behind 'following the science' all along though. Its not a policy they can easily abandon.
Presumably he thinks all cars should be banned, apart from the ministerial Zils?
The idea of Patrick Harvie being minister for anything is appalling enough. Surely they won't let him actually go anywhere or do anything? Even the SNP can't be that stupid.
Presumably he thinks all cars should be banned, apart from the ministerial Zils?
The idea of Patrick Harvie being minister for anything is appalling enough. Surely they won't let him actually go anywhere or do anything? Even the SNP can't be that stupid.
Indeed. As I said the other day he is competing with Boris Johnson for the title of Biggest Clown in Public Life
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
It isn't though, because Rees-Mogg was already very wealthy and well connected.
The Thatcherite wealthy were new to money and best identified and satirized by Harry Enfield.
Plasterer Loadsamoney. Mr and Mrs considerably more money than YOW.....
The likes of Rees Mogg did very well under Thatcher. They do under all PMs tbf but they did particularly well out of her tenure. And, as you say, so did some working class people in Essex. Being able to commute into Liverpool St station was the key qualification in the meritocracy she unleashed.
Amusing though your last sentence is, it is thoroughly wrong. The meritocracy she unleashed was a meritocracy where anyone, and I mean anyone, could think to start their own small business. That was certainly not the case in the time preceding her premiership. I can remember many people on the left sneering about small businesses at the time. The small business revolution was her lasting legacy. Her other legacy, the European Single Market was sadly trashed by the pigmies that now "lead" the Conservative Party.
Ok, I caricature slightly. But any fair assessment of Thatcher must recognize the skew to the wealth and opportunity created. Many parts of the country didn't share in the bonanza. And out of it came a frothy, deal orientated economy, dominated by an increasingly bloated City of London, that delivers fabulously for some and not at all for a great many others. That's why she was and remains a divisive figure.
Presumably he thinks all cars should be banned, apart from the ministerial Zils?
The idea of Patrick Harvie being minister for anything is appalling enough. Surely they won't let him actually go anywhere or do anything? Even the SNP can't be that stupid.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
Indeed. As Mrs T is being much discussed this morning, her mantra of "Advisors advise, ministers decide" is changed by dithering Johnson to "Advisors advise, ministers say "er er er, not sure"
Whilst I completely understand that you will never approve of Boris because of the B thing I think it is wrong to fail to recognise that UK Ministers have made a series of really ballsy decisions in respect of the pandemic, a reasonable percentage of which have proven to be inspired: * The appointment of Kate Bingham and the contracts she was authorised to enter into; * The decision to do our own thing instead of relying upon the brilliance of UDVL and her negotiating team. * The highly controversial (at the time) decision to delay second doses to vaccinate more with the first dose. *The brave decision to basically stop the pingdemic by changing the criteria (jury still out). *The brave decision to end lockdown in the face of ongoing cases (jury still arguably out).
There has been a lot of mucking about with foreign travel, quarantine, the early days of T&T, etc but there has been some brave decision taking too.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
There was a much more "traditional" view about black people being inferior to white people for a long time. Your excuse is pathetic.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
The government has been hiding behind 'following the science' all along though. Its not a policy they can easily abandon.
There comes a point at which any Government can say "You know, I have had enough of your bollocks forecasting. It's only weeks ago you were sucking air through teeth and saying "I wouldn't do that, opening now....hundred thousand cases a day...an NHS that can't cope....". Well, your credibility is shot."
Presumably he thinks all cars should be banned, apart from the ministerial Zils?
The idea of Patrick Harvie being minister for anything is appalling enough. Surely they won't let him actually go anywhere or do anything? Even the SNP can't be that stupid.
Fair play, at least you you support a party that ensures Annie Wells will not be minister of anything.
Finally got around to watching the C4 documentary. It's very interesting, nothing anyone who has read about the lab leak theory doesn't already know.
What's interesting is that the stuff they're talking about is what my university friend has been saying for a few weeks, if he's talking about this stuff then the same conversations are happening all over the world within science.
These are kinds of things the UK should be addressing with intelligence resources.
Presumably he thinks all cars should be banned, apart from the ministerial Zils?
The idea of Patrick Harvie being minister for anything is appalling enough. Surely they won't let him actually go anywhere or do anything? Even the SNP can't be that stupid.
Not a vegan and therefore not to be trusted.
I am not sure that would be in my top 40 reasons personally, but fair enough.
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
The government is terrified of appearing to go against advice, but they have conflicting advice here so it should be less concerning to them.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
Indeed. As Mrs T is being much discussed this morning, her mantra of "Advisors advise, ministers decide" is changed by dithering Johnson to "Advisors advise, ministers say "er er er, not sure"
Whilst I completely understand that you will never approve of Boris because of the B thing I think it is wrong to fail to recognise that UK Ministers have made a series of really ballsy decisions in respect of the pandemic, a reasonable percentage of which have proven to be inspired: * The appointment of Kate Bingham and the contracts she was authorised to enter into; * The decision to do our own thing instead of relying upon the brilliance of UDVL and her negotiating team. * The highly controversial (at the time) decision to delay second doses to vaccinate more with the first dose. *The brave decision to basically stop the pingdemic by changing the criteria (jury still out). *The brave decision to end lockdown in the face of ongoing cases (jury still arguably out).
There has been a lot of mucking about with foreign travel, quarantine, the early days of T&T, etc but there has been some brave decision taking too.
On the last one, I'm not sure it was a brave decision at all. It was the way that the wind was blowing, AND entirely necessary....
I've been to two weddings, on countless thousands of miles of train travel, and to several trade fairs this month.
The worried can stay at home. The majority, as far as I can see, are getting on with it. My experience, and the polling on 'numbers still wearing masks' or 'staying at home' suggest to me that what people are saying and what they are doing, no longer correlates.
Homophobia is and always was wrong. Just as racism is and always was wrong.
Saying it was a symptom of the time is irrelevant, it's either right or it is wrong. End of story.
Just as in a few decades time this culture war nonsense about trans people will be much the same.
Women, know your place. A man has spoken.
I know it is a common trope on here. But is there any evidence women are more opposed to trans rights than men?
It is a common misconception women, or indeed anyone, is opposed to trans rights. They aren’t. They just want to protect women’s rights and women only spaces.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
Indeed. As Mrs T is being much discussed this morning, her mantra of "Advisors advise, ministers decide" is changed by dithering Johnson to "Advisors advise, ministers say "er er er, not sure"
Whilst I completely understand that you will never approve of Boris because of the B thing I think it is wrong to fail to recognise that UK Ministers have made a series of really ballsy decisions in respect of the pandemic, a reasonable percentage of which have proven to be inspired: * The appointment of Kate Bingham and the contracts she was authorised to enter into; * The decision to do our own thing instead of relying upon the brilliance of UDVL and her negotiating team. * The highly controversial (at the time) decision to delay second doses to vaccinate more with the first dose. *The brave decision to basically stop the pingdemic by changing the criteria (jury still out). *The brave decision to end lockdown in the face of ongoing cases (jury still arguably out).
There has been a lot of mucking about with foreign travel, quarantine, the early days of T&T, etc but there has been some brave decision taking too.
Is this satire!? Brave decision to end the pingdemic after weeks of everyone pointing out how ridiculous it was? And the cabinet not complying with it anyway!
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
Indeed. As Mrs T is being much discussed this morning, her mantra of "Advisors advise, ministers decide" is changed by dithering Johnson to "Advisors advise, ministers say "er er er, not sure"
Whilst I completely understand that you will never approve of Boris because of the B thing I think it is wrong to fail to recognise that UK Ministers have made a series of really ballsy decisions in respect of the pandemic, a reasonable percentage of which have proven to be inspired: * The appointment of Kate Bingham and the contracts she was authorised to enter into; * The decision to do our own thing instead of relying upon the brilliance of UDVL and her negotiating team. * The highly controversial (at the time) decision to delay second doses to vaccinate more with the first dose. *The brave decision to basically stop the pingdemic by changing the criteria (jury still out). *The brave decision to end lockdown in the face of ongoing cases (jury still arguably out).
There has been a lot of mucking about with foreign travel, quarantine, the early days of T&T, etc but there has been some brave decision taking too.
On the last one, I'm not sure it was a brave decision at all. It was the way that the wind was blowing, AND entirely necessary....
I've been to two weddings, on countless thousands of miles of train travel, and to several trade fairs this month.
The worried can stay at home. The majority, as far as I can see, are getting on with it. My experience, and the polling on 'numbers still wearing masks' or 'staying at home' suggest to me that what people are saying and what they are doing, no longer correlates.
We are now at the point that somewhere between 100 and 150 people a day are dying within 28 days of a positive Covid test. The government has decided, too bad, life must go on and we cannot afford to be locked down any more. There was a lot of medical expert opinion who forecast that the result of those decisions would be even more cases and even more death. I think it was brave to make that call. I agree it was the right call and consistent with the majority view but it was still brave. You only have to look at the wibbling from Nicola, for example, to see how it could have gone the other way.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
The government is terrified of appearing to go against advice, but they have conflicting advice here so it should be less concerning to them.
"Downing Street is again briefing that another nationwide lockdown is unconscionable"
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
There was a much more "traditional" view about black people being inferior to white people for a long time. Your excuse is pathetic.
There is nothing in the Bible or Koran saying your ethnicity of birth is a sin.
There is however about sleeping with someone of the same gender, just as there is in terms of adultery etc.
Many religious people still take the view that the practice of homosexuality is wrong even if you should love the sinner.
Thatcher was a religious person as a product of her Methodist upbringing.
However she never went so far as to support making homosexuality illegal, hence she voted to decriminalise it.
However in North Africa and much of the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality remains illegal
You have to read this to believe it: Hungarian ruling party propagandists are celebrating the victory of the Taliban, their spiritual comrades in arms, and the defeat of evil America https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430834820159049733
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
There was a much more "traditional" view about black people being inferior to white people for a long time. Your excuse is pathetic.
There is nothing in the Bible or Koran saying your ethnicity of birth is a sin.
There is however about sleeping with someone of the same gender, just as there is in terms of adultery etc.
Many religious people still take the view that the practice of homosexuality is wrong even if you should love the sinner.
Thatcher was a religious person as a product of her Methodist upbringing.
However she never went so far as to support making homosexuality illegal, hence she voted to decriminalise it.
However in North Africa and much of the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality remains illegal
There's a great deal in the old Testament about the inferiority of women, too. And stoning adulterers.
I think you're on a sticky wicket here.
Not to mention the prohibition on letting your hair become unkempt.
Homophobia is and always was wrong. Just as racism is and always was wrong.
Saying it was a symptom of the time is irrelevant, it's either right or it is wrong. End of story.
Just as in a few decades time this culture war nonsense about trans people will be much the same.
Women, know your place. A man has spoken.
I know it is a common trope on here. But is there any evidence women are more opposed to trans rights than men?
It is a common misconception women, or indeed anyone, is opposed to trans rights. They aren’t. They just want to protect women’s rights and women only spaces.
The evidence of this Yougov suggests it is men more so than women.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
There was a much more "traditional" view about black people being inferior to white people for a long time. Your excuse is pathetic.
There is nothing in the Bible or Koran saying your ethnicity of birth is a sin.
There is however about sleeping with someone of the same gender, just as there is in terms of adultery etc.
Many religious people still take the view that the practice of homosexuality is wrong even if you should love the sinner.
Thatcher was a religious person as a product of her Methodist upbringing.
However she never went so far as to support making homosexuality illegal, hence she voted to decriminalise it.
However in North Africa and much of the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality remains illegal
I think it's clear that the degree of sin based on your ethnicity at birth depends upon the performance of Rugby teams.
Allowances can of course be made. Just because you're Welsh doesn't mean you can't play rugby. Nonetheless you get a 1% sympathy bonus.
You have to read this to believe it: Hungarian ruling party propagandists are celebrating the victory of the Taliban, their spiritual comrades in arms, and the defeat of evil America https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430834820159049733
Fidesz, Taliban, GOP, BJP, Brexiteers all on the same side of the coin.....
Mate of mine works in an abbatoir/meat processing plant, he was saying much the same thing the other day. They were hit hard by covid initially, then the pingdemic and Covid over the past few months, and on top of that staff are leaving in droves - lots of EU staff gone but UK folk also leaving in numbers. Often the younger people, apparently.
The gaps in the local supermarket shelves and freezers are getting bigger and bigger too.
The government need to get a grip on this. If they screw this up, and Xmas is bad as the industry is forecasting, whether people are still thankful for Brexit or not won't matter. People won't be happy.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
Indeed. As Mrs T is being much discussed this morning, her mantra of "Advisors advise, ministers decide" is changed by dithering Johnson to "Advisors advise, ministers say "er er er, not sure"
Whilst I completely understand that you will never approve of Boris because of the B thing I think it is wrong to fail to recognise that UK Ministers have made a series of really ballsy decisions in respect of the pandemic, a reasonable percentage of which have proven to be inspired: * The appointment of Kate Bingham and the contracts she was authorised to enter into; * The decision to do our own thing instead of relying upon the brilliance of UDVL and her negotiating team. * The highly controversial (at the time) decision to delay second doses to vaccinate more with the first dose. *The brave decision to basically stop the pingdemic by changing the criteria (jury still out). *The brave decision to end lockdown in the face of ongoing cases (jury still arguably out).
There has been a lot of mucking about with foreign travel, quarantine, the early days of T&T, etc but there has been some brave decision taking too.
On the last one, I'm not sure it was a brave decision at all. It was the way that the wind was blowing, AND entirely necessary....
I've been to two weddings, on countless thousands of miles of train travel, and to several trade fairs this month.
The worried can stay at home. The majority, as far as I can see, are getting on with it. My experience, and the polling on 'numbers still wearing masks' or 'staying at home' suggest to me that what people are saying and what they are doing, no longer correlates.
We are now at the point that somewhere between 100 and 150 people a day are dying within 28 days of a positive Covid test. The government has decided, too bad, life must go on and we cannot afford to be locked down any more. There was a lot of medical expert opinion who forecast that the result of those decisions would be even more cases and even more death. I think it was brave to make that call. I agree it was the right call and consistent with the majority view but it was still brave. You only have to look at the wibbling from Nicola, for example, to see how it could have gone the other way.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
There was a much more "traditional" view about black people being inferior to white people for a long time. Your excuse is pathetic.
There is nothing in the Bible or Koran saying your ethnicity of birth is a sin.
There is however about sleeping with someone of the same gender, just as there is in terms of adultery etc.
Many religious people still take the view that the practice of homosexuality is wrong even if you should love the sinner.
Thatcher was a religious person as a product of her Methodist upbringing.
However she never went so far as to support making homosexuality illegal, hence she voted to decriminalise it.
However in North Africa and much of the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality remains illegal
There's a great deal in the old Testament about the inferiority of women, too. And stoning adulterers.
I think you're on a sticky wicket here.
Not to mention the prohibition on letting your hair become unkempt.
And of course the Taliban will be reintroducing laws in Afghanistan based on precisely those lines.
However while Thatcher may have disagreed with adultery and homosexuality she did not make them illegal or advocate stoning.
The fact she became the first female PM against much sexism from her male colleagues showed that while she could use her religious convictions to guide her (including regular haircuts) she did not believe in a Theocracy and that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, should be the basis for UK law
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
Mate of mine works in an abbatoir/meat processing plant, he was saying much the same thing the other day. They were hit hard by covid initially, then the pingdemic and Covid over the past few months, and on top of that staff are leaving in droves - lots of EU staff gone but UK folk also leaving in numbers. Often the younger people, apparently.
The gaps in the local supermarket shelves and freezers are getting bigger and bigger too.
The government need to get a grip on this. If they screw this up, and Xmas is bad as the industry is forecasting, whether people are still thankful for Brexit or not won't matter. People won't be happy.
Pig Trouble in Little Britain
Hopefully the PM’s wife will make an invaluable intervention.
Homophobia is and always was wrong. Just as racism is and always was wrong.
Saying it was a symptom of the time is irrelevant, it's either right or it is wrong. End of story.
Just as in a few decades time this culture war nonsense about trans people will be much the same.
Women, know your place. A man has spoken.
I know it is a common trope on here. But is there any evidence women are more opposed to trans rights than men?
It is a common misconception women, or indeed anyone, is opposed to trans rights. They aren’t. They just want to protect women’s rights and women only spaces.
The evidence of this Yougov suggests it is men more so than women.
I think it makes sense that men are more likely to oppose men (and they are men until they get the surgery) from going into female changing rooms (though note that only 18-24 year olds and Labour voters are more likely than not to be fine with it). After all, men know what it's like to be a man. Women don't, which probably explains why they might be more likely to want to be kind to a man who says he's a woman.
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
Homophobia is and always was wrong. Just as racism is and always was wrong.
Saying it was a symptom of the time is irrelevant, it's either right or it is wrong. End of story.
Just as in a few decades time this culture war nonsense about trans people will be much the same.
Women, know your place. A man has spoken.
I know it is a common trope on here. But is there any evidence women are more opposed to trans rights than men?
It is a common misconception women, or indeed anyone, is opposed to trans rights. They aren’t. They just want to protect women’s rights and women only spaces.
Thank God we have blokes to explain what it's all about.
Would Thatcher win a GE today with her uncompromising stance, cetainly not interested in touchy feely stuff and less than "enlightened" views on various social issues?
It was only due to Thatcher we have the politics of today, if not for her we would still have unions running the country, mainly nationalised industries and a 90% top rate of income tax.
She was also not as unenlightened as made out, she was one of a minority of Tory MPs to vote to legalise homosexuality for example
Back when she was a nobody. When it mattered, and she had the power, she chose to weaponise homophobia in the most cynical way.
In the 1980s there was still a far more traditional attitude around about homosexuality so largely a product of the time.
She was also let us not forget still a Conservative PM not a Liberal PM
There was a much more "traditional" view about black people being inferior to white people for a long time. Your excuse is pathetic.
There is nothing in the Bible or Koran saying your ethnicity of birth is a sin.
There is however about sleeping with someone of the same gender, just as there is in terms of adultery etc.
Many religious people still take the view that the practice of homosexuality is wrong even if you should love the sinner.
Thatcher was a religious person as a product of her Methodist upbringing.
However she never went so far as to support making homosexuality illegal, hence she voted to decriminalise it.
However in North Africa and much of the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality remains illegal
There's a great deal in the old Testament about the inferiority of women, too. And stoning adulterers.
I think you're on a sticky wicket here.
Not to mention the prohibition on letting your hair become unkempt.
I imagine Boris Johnson not a great fan of the Old Testament.
Trying my hand at writing the 1st sentence of a tabloid feature:
President Joe Biden, age 78, married to Jill Biden, age 70 and female and owner of Major, a German shepherd aged 3, must bear full responsibility for Donald Trump's negotiations with the Taliban and the hasty retreat and suicide bombings at Kabul airport.
Homophobia is and always was wrong. Just as racism is and always was wrong.
Saying it was a symptom of the time is irrelevant, it's either right or it is wrong. End of story.
Just as in a few decades time this culture war nonsense about trans people will be much the same.
Women, know your place. A man has spoken.
I know it is a common trope on here. But is there any evidence women are more opposed to trans rights than men?
It is a common misconception women, or indeed anyone, is opposed to trans rights. They aren’t. They just want to protect women’s rights and women only spaces.
Thank God we have a bloke to explain what it's all about.
The same blokes that built your house. The same blokes that keep that house safe. The same blokes that have made music.
I'm sure that it doesn't have to be all blokes, but I'm sure that you're going to have to demonstrate otherwise.
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
What if the child wants to see its grandparents?
Then the child being a child it would be the the parents and grandparents (being fucking adults) who can make the decision for them.
What if the child wants to drive a Vauxhall Senator at 135mph on the A303?
Edit: I of course have done the latter but only had the mind, not the body or legal status of a child.
Trying my hand at writing the 1st sentence of a tabloid feature:
President Joe Biden, age 78, married to Jill Biden, age 70 and female and owner of Major, a German shepherd aged 3, must bear full responsibility for Donald Trump's negotiations with the Taliban and the hasty retreat and suicide bombings at Kabul airport.
Probably should have this is a sub story to add a bit of interest.
Homophobia is and always was wrong. Just as racism is and always was wrong.
Saying it was a symptom of the time is irrelevant, it's either right or it is wrong. End of story.
Just as in a few decades time this culture war nonsense about trans people will be much the same.
Women, know your place. A man has spoken.
I know it is a common trope on here. But is there any evidence women are more opposed to trans rights than men?
I believe the polling is quite clear and in general women are more pro trans rights than men are.
I don't happen to think that trans rights impact the rights of women at all, I see very little evidence that this is the case.
Hey Ladies. The term mansplaining means Man explaining.
Oh you're on a wind up, I see
No, I think you are emphatically wrong and dismissive of gender critical women’s concerns.
Typically much of this debate is men telling women what to think.
And you're totally dismissive of the rights of trans people, you see it works both ways.
Perhaps you'd like to provide an example of where the rights of women have been impacted by giving rights to trans people.
I'm sorry polling disagrees with what you/other women believe, I only pointed out than on average - as far as I can recall - women are more supportive of trans rights than men.
I happen to think it's not an issue but I am happy to understand more from women if they'd like to provide examples.
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
What if the child wants to see its grandparents?
Then the child being a child it would be the the parents and grandparents (being fucking adults) who can make the decision for them.
What if the child wants to drive a Vauxhall Senator at 135mph on the A303?
They'd be lost. The A303 leads nowhere. I'm sure there must be signs.
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
Now children we turn to the fable of the auld boy who cried Taliban Holocaust.
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
What if the child wants to see its grandparents?
Then the child being a child it would be the the parents and grandparents (being fucking adults) who can make the decision for them.
What if the child wants to drive a Vauxhall Senator at 135mph on the A303?
They'd be lost. The A303 leads nowhere. I'm sure there must be signs.
What if the child wants to join up to fight the Taliban. Then he would absolutely be in the right place on the A303 to get to his Platoon Commanders Battle Course, or his Anti-Tanks course, or one of several other such courses at establishments at the far end of that road.
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
The Chinese firmly believe they are the "Middle Kingdom". For good reason. It is literally the name of their country. In the same way they believe America is beautiful, the English are bold and France is the land of law.
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
What if the child wants to see its grandparents?
Then the child being a child it would be the the parents and grandparents (being fucking adults) who can make the decision for them.
What if the child wants to drive a Vauxhall Senator at 135mph on the A303?
They'd be lost. The A303 leads nowhere. I'm sure there must be signs.
What if the child wants to join up to fight the Taliban. Then he would absolutely be in the right place on the A303 to get to his Platoon Commanders Battle Course, or his Anti-Tanks course, or one of several other such courses at establishments at the far end of that road.
It's good to see the FDP back in the game. If I had a vote in Germany that's who I would be going for.
Interestingly the shift has come almost entirely from direct CDU-SPD switchers (unless there are cross-currents that we can't see). People who aren't very political and are just interested in the major party being clearly sensible and on top of the issues and deciding that fits the SPD better at the moment, perhaps.
Ideologically there is almost no difference between Scholz, who is on the right of the SPD and Laschet who is a Merkel loyalist which also makes it easier for the voters to switch. They simply see Scholz as more competent than Laschet.
If the SPD do win however and the Union go into opposition I would expect the Union to move right
Our resident expert on German politics has spoken! Have you figured out yet that Berlin isn't part of Thuringia?
Is there no ideological difference between, for example, being for or against a wealth tax, or for or against higher taxes on high earners etc etc? This sort of stuff used to be the very definition of ideological difference, but I guess I'm behind the times, or something.
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
Now children we turn to the fable of the auld boy who cried Taliban Holocaust.
He sees on Twitter a few dozen people unpixellated who tragically died during a phase withdrawal of personnel in a hostile environment, wets himself, and calls it the end of Western civilisation.
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
That looks like a rehash of something I read here on PB.
I think Mr Thomas is plagiarising our very own Leon!
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
What if the child wants to see its grandparents?
Then the child being a child it would be the the parents and grandparents (being fucking adults) who can make the decision for them.
What if the child wants to drive a Vauxhall Senator at 135mph on the A303?
They'd be lost. The A303 leads nowhere. I'm sure there must be signs.
What if the child wants to join up to fight the Taliban. Then he would absolutely be in the right place on the A303 to get to his Platoon Commanders Battle Course, or his Anti-Tanks course, or one of several other such courses at establishments at the far end of that road.
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
That looks like a rehash of something I read here on PB.
I think Mr Thomas is plagiarising our very own Leon!
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
What if the child wants to see its grandparents?
Then the child being a child it would be the the parents and grandparents (being fucking adults) who can make the decision for them.
What if the child wants to drive a Vauxhall Senator at 135mph on the A303?
They'd be lost. The A303 leads nowhere. I'm sure there must be signs.
What if the child wants to join up to fight the Taliban. Then he would absolutely be in the right place on the A303 to get to his Platoon Commanders Battle Course, or his Anti-Tanks course, or one of several other such courses at establishments at the far end of that road.
This child I think is brighter than we suspected.
I referred to A303 as a road.
Oh I'm missing this. What else is it?
A road you may have referred to as below;
"Then he would absolutely be in the right place on the A303 to get to his Platoon Commanders Battle Course, or his Anti-Tanks course, or one of several other such courses at establishments at the far end of that road."
Is it? What purpose do such stores serve today? Their clientele are dying.
That’s a bit harsh. Department stores serve a function, namely to cater to people who are not proficient / don’t feel comfortable with online shopping.
It’s alright saying it’s all about the yoof but online shopping is a drag when you have to return anything. It is also not helped when, in things like shoes, sizes can vary, even from the same retailer.
"Contactless payment rise to £100 sparks concern about crime - so how can you protect yourself?
The limit on contactless payments will rise from £45 to £100 from October 15, in a bid to get people to spend more in shops. It is the second time in less than two years the limit has been increased - in March 2020 the limit on contactless payments was increased from £30 to £45 amid the coronavirus pandemic. The increase had already been announced by the government earlier this year, but banks had not yet decided when to implement it."
Do you want these children to get these vaccines for their protection, or yours?
Because for them, the chances of dying of covid are less than being struck by lightning.
These children might just want to get the vaccine to ensue that older members of their family don't catch it from them and die?
How can that happen? older members of their family have been doubled jabbed, and will soon be jabbed again. They are protected.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
We are entering a period where the effectiveness of the double jab is waning somewhat. Nobody is forcing kids to get the jab. But if they want to do their bit, to make sure they don't bring the virus to granny before she gets her booster, then I salute them.
You?
I would prefer a 12-year old child lived its life free of having to make such a terrible grown up decision. I never had to and I don't see why anybody at that age should. I also think anybody expecting a child to make that decision at that age has completely lost their moral compass.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
What if the child wants to see its grandparents?
Then the child being a child it would be the the parents and grandparents (being fucking adults) who can make the decision for them.
What if the child wants to drive a Vauxhall Senator at 135mph on the A303?
They'd be lost. The A303 leads nowhere. I'm sure there must be signs.
What if the child wants to join up to fight the Taliban. Then he would absolutely be in the right place on the A303 to get to his Platoon Commanders Battle Course, or his Anti-Tanks course, or one of several other such courses at establishments at the far end of that road.
This child I think is brighter than we suspected.
I referred to A303 as a road.
Oh I'm missing this. What else is it?
A road you may have referred to as below;
"Then he would absolutely be in the right place on the A303 to get to his Platoon Commanders Battle Course, or his Anti-Tanks course, or one of several other such courses at establishments at the far end of that road."
Oops!
Bloody hell I'm so sorry I am being super-dense. I don't get it and I hate not getting it.
Please can you PM me and explain why or how I'm being so stupid or just lay it out here for all to see. I'm up to it!
I absolutely know that there is a very good joke in there and I am frustrated I can't see it.
Trying my hand at writing the 1st sentence of a tabloid feature:
President Joe Biden, age 78, married to Jill Biden, age 70 and female and owner of Major, a German shepherd aged 3, must bear full responsibility for Donald Trump's negotiations with the Taliban and the hasty retreat and suicide bombings at Kabul airport.
Probably should have this is a sub story to add a bit of interest.
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
That looks like a rehash of something I read here on PB.
I think Mr Thomas is plagiarising our very own Leon!
Leon should sue!
It reminiscent of Superman: you never saw him and Clark Kent together.
WTF. This is so stupid. The JCVI is there to advise the government. If the government do not like the advice, they simply override it.
And it is such an easy message - the MHRA have approved the vaccine, vaccination of 12+ is happening in the US and EU without disqualifying adverse effects, we appreciate the input of the JCVI, but on the balance of the entirety of issues that the Government must consider, we have decided to proceed with vaccination for the 12+ age cohort. This vaccine is safe for teens, provides them protection against the Delta variant which is affecting teens more than previous variants, and will help us get closer to herd immunity and hence reducing the prospect of newer, nastier variants gaining hold.
Indeed. As Mrs T is being much discussed this morning, her mantra of "Advisors advise, ministers decide" is changed by dithering Johnson to "Advisors advise, ministers say "er er er, not sure"
Whilst I completely understand that you will never approve of Boris because of the B thing I think it is wrong to fail to recognise that UK Ministers have made a series of really ballsy decisions in respect of the pandemic, a reasonable percentage of which have proven to be inspired: * The appointment of Kate Bingham and the contracts she was authorised to enter into; * The decision to do our own thing instead of relying upon the brilliance of UDVL and her negotiating team. * The highly controversial (at the time) decision to delay second doses to vaccinate more with the first dose. *The brave decision to basically stop the pingdemic by changing the criteria (jury still out). *The brave decision to end lockdown in the face of ongoing cases (jury still arguably out).
There has been a lot of mucking about with foreign travel, quarantine, the early days of T&T, etc but there has been some brave decision taking too.
On the last one, I'm not sure it was a brave decision at all. It was the way that the wind was blowing, AND entirely necessary....
I've been to two weddings, on countless thousands of miles of train travel, and to several trade fairs this month.
The worried can stay at home. The majority, as far as I can see, are getting on with it. My experience, and the polling on 'numbers still wearing masks' or 'staying at home' suggest to me that what people are saying and what they are doing, no longer correlates.
“no longer”? For many it was always the case that the saying was for others and the doing for themselves.
"Contactless payment rise to £100 sparks concern about crime - so how can you protect yourself?
The limit on contactless payments will rise from £45 to £100 from October 15, in a bid to get people to spend more in shops. It is the second time in less than two years the limit has been increased - in March 2020 the limit on contactless payments was increased from £30 to £45 amid the coronavirus pandemic. The increase had already been announced by the government earlier this year, but banks had not yet decided when to implement it."
Posted on Johns Hopkins GHN website, but originally from the Daily Beast, I think:
"Sturgis As Superspreader: ‘We Knew This Was Going to Happen’
The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally held August 6–15 in Meade County, South Dakota, had all the makings of a superspreader event: More than 500K attendees No testing No mask requirements No vaccination requirements in a county with only 38.3% of residents vaccinated
The aftermath: A 3,400% increase in Meade’s 7-day case counts, with 1 in 3 tests coming back positive Over 1,000% increases in two neighboring counties A 686.8% increase across the state
“We knew this was going to happen,” said Dr. Shankar Kurra of Monument Health in Rapid City.
Lollapalooza in Chicago offered a stark contrast. The 4-day event required proof of vaccination or a negative test from the 385K attendees, 90% of whom were fully vaccinated. There was no spike in cases."
"Contactless payment rise to £100 sparks concern about crime - so how can you protect yourself?
The limit on contactless payments will rise from £45 to £100 from October 15, in a bid to get people to spend more in shops. It is the second time in less than two years the limit has been increased - in March 2020 the limit on contactless payments was increased from £30 to £45 amid the coronavirus pandemic. The increase had already been announced by the government earlier this year, but banks had not yet decided when to implement it."
I may be being dim here, but exactly how does that "get people to spend more in shops?" I mean I do. But simultaneously don't.
In a pandemic, I can see how - removing one potential source of contamination. But in general? Don't know. Maybe anything that makes it easier to part people from their money helps them spend more?
You were correct in your post the other day. What I thought was a case of Simpson's paradox wasn't as you pointed out, it was just basic misuse of data. I read up on it again today and can see why Robert thought it might be. My apologies for getting this wrong, in my defence it was new to me and looks very, very similar, but it is far far more subtle.
I tried thinking of other ways to explain what HYUFD was getting wrong to him. I thought of an example of replacing schools and pupils with bags containing marbles (some large, some small) in two boxes. One box where the bags are a mix of marbles and one where the large marbles are all put in one bag and the other bags have the small ones. But he will just say it is another hypothetical and not understand that once you prove it fails in one hypothetical you have proved what you are doing is flawed for all situations (proof by contradiction). I even used a variable for the number of large and small marbles so it wasn't specific and could be used for any mix. Then decided 'what is the point'.
I thought of other really silly examples; eg by comparing co-ed with non co-ed or by demonstrating that the more extreme you make the selection the more the results change without any changes in anything else i.e. nonsense. What puzzles me is why HYUFD doesn't sit back and think why are so many people on here telling me I am wrong and not go and check.
Also how does he not get that once you use a stat out of context its use is no longer factual. It was an obvious comparing apples with pears scenario or comparing a pre-selected subset of data from one sample to the whole set of another.
He thinks a stat used out of contest is a fact when it isn't, yet a proof by contradiction he doesn't see is a fact when it is. He doesn't know what a fact is!
Also I don't get the obsession of dismissing the use of maths and logic as being just a smart-arse as if it is something that should only be used in some academic circle and not real life. A bit like we have had enough of experts.
Of course there are valid arguments that can be put in favour of Grammar schools, after all I am only expressing an opinion (not a fact).
NerysHughes and his hospital face mask argument springs to mind as another example of a stat being completely misapplied and him not getting it when pointed out by so many on here.
So despite your attempt to turn this site into Maths.com not PB.com still no answer for the fact the worst local authority areas for Oxbridge admission are in comprehensive areas and selective areas are all well above average for Oxbridge admission. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018.pdf (p 32)
You haven't learnt that single data points rarely prove anything
They do when they effectively meet the very criteria kjh set for whether selective areas were beneficial or not.
Nope I didn't. At no point have I used stats. Not once. I know my limitations.
No you haven't because you don't have any to refute the ones I produce.
Oh this is so frustrating.
I don't need to produce any stats to prove you are wrong. In fact to do so wouldn't be a proof because two sets of different stats have different criteria so it wouldn't prove you wrong. It would prove absolutely nothing.
However what I did do was a proof by contradiction. I suggest you look it up.
It wasn't difficult because it was clear to everyone but you that you were comparing a subset of one set to the complete set of another set, which you just can't do.
Now none of this proves whether Grammar schools are better or worse than Comprehensives, so doesn't prove whether either of us is right. We both have different opinions and both are as valid as each other, but it does show that the assumption you came to from a valid stat was unfounded. It was mathematically wrong. It was unfactual. It was incorrect. It was not true. Now that is a provable fact.
You don't understand any of this do you?
Maths doesn't stop in the classroom in goes into real life and you can't just ignore it and pretend it doesn't apply.
Why do you bother
@HYUFD has a closed mind to any opinion which he does not consent to
I am slightly hesitant about contributing to this but having had a son go through the Oxbridge application process over the last 2 years I have a certain sympathy for @HYUFD's position here.
The starting point is that admission to Oxbridge for most subjects is incredibly hard. My son had 4 advanced Highers this year but worked at least as hard on his TSA as he did on them. Hours and hours were spent on his UCAS application and as many mock interviews as we could find were given. He was at a good private school but they seemed to have little appreciation of just how difficult it is and we sought and needed outside help.
What drove him to success was enormous determination on his part, a willingness to sacrifice sports and what most teenagers would consider a social life. He was (correctly) advised not to stand for any of the positions available to pupils in the school: he simply did not have time. A major factor in his success was the competitive pressure that was provided with an exceptional cohort, 5 of whom have also made it.
Applying this to the grammar school/Comprehensive set up and it seems that the criteria I have identified are far more likely to be met in a grammar school than a comprehensive. There is a completely artificial concentration of the locally available talent to provide the competition. There are classes that work at the requisite pace without distractions and there are more likely to me teachers with a better understanding of what was required. The ability to work at an exceptional pace is a prerequisite for exams like the TSA.
An exceptional child can of course make it from a Comprehensive but even with the outreach campaigns that Oxford offers (no doubt Cambridge has something similar) that path is much, much more difficult. They simply do not have the necessary support network.
Of course there is an entirely different question about whether Oxbridge entrants is a meaningful or useful test of school success. I would personally say not. It is much more important how the 99% fare than the 1% and there is good evidence that they on average do better in a comprehensive system. I favour comprehensives for this reason but I was not surprised at @HYUFD's claim.
I don't disagree with any of that @DavidL . It was very well put. My only objection was to the bloody maths!
Trying my hand at writing the 1st sentence of a tabloid feature:
President Joe Biden, age 78, married to Jill Biden, age 70 and female and owner of Major, a German shepherd aged 3, must bear full responsibility for Donald Trump's negotiations with the Taliban and the hasty retreat and suicide bombings at Kabul airport.
Probably should have this is a sub story to add a bit of interest.
Taliban incels?
Sexual frustration, the unavailability of marriage to poor men in some Islamic societies, and Islamic terrorism have been linked - at least in some academic circles - for at least a decade.
Posted on Johns Hopkins GHN website, but originally from the Daily Beast, I think:
"Sturgis As Superspreader: ‘We Knew This Was Going to Happen’
The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally held August 6–15 in Meade County, South Dakota, had all the makings of a superspreader event: More than 500K attendees No testing No mask requirements No vaccination requirements in a county with only 38.3% of residents vaccinated
The aftermath: A 3,400% increase in Meade’s 7-day case counts, with 1 in 3 tests coming back positive Over 1,000% increases in two neighboring counties A 686.8% increase across the state
“We knew this was going to happen,” said Dr. Shankar Kurra of Monument Health in Rapid City.
Lollapalooza in Chicago offered a stark contrast. The 4-day event required proof of vaccination or a negative test from the 385K attendees, 90% of whom were fully vaccinated. There was no spike in cases."
I guess Mayor Lori Lightfoot---what a splendid name---believes in numbers and logic.
Posted on Johns Hopkins GHN website, but originally from the Daily Beast, I think:
"Sturgis As Superspreader: ‘We Knew This Was Going to Happen’
The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally held August 6–15 in Meade County, South Dakota, had all the makings of a superspreader event: More than 500K attendees No testing No mask requirements No vaccination requirements in a county with only 38.3% of residents vaccinated
The aftermath: A 3,400% increase in Meade’s 7-day case counts, with 1 in 3 tests coming back positive Over 1,000% increases in two neighboring counties A 686.8% increase across the state
“We knew this was going to happen,” said Dr. Shankar Kurra of Monument Health in Rapid City.
Lollapalooza in Chicago offered a stark contrast. The 4-day event required proof of vaccination or a negative test from the 385K attendees, 90% of whom were fully vaccinated. There was no spike in cases."
It's just staggering. There are many difficult health and policy issues in the world, often with difficult trade-offs. On Covid, thanks to the vaccines, there's no difficulty at all: we now have a near-perfect, extremely safe, extremely cheap (and cost-free for individuals) solution to the worst of this scourge, a solution which is universally available on demand in the US and other advanced economies, and people are deliberately choosing not to protect themselves.
The sheer idiocy of large swathes of the population has been a real eye-opener.
"Contactless payment rise to £100 sparks concern about crime - so how can you protect yourself?
The limit on contactless payments will rise from £45 to £100 from October 15, in a bid to get people to spend more in shops. It is the second time in less than two years the limit has been increased - in March 2020 the limit on contactless payments was increased from £30 to £45 amid the coronavirus pandemic. The increase had already been announced by the government earlier this year, but banks had not yet decided when to implement it."
I may be being dim here, but exactly how does that "get people to spend more in shops?" I mean I do. But simultaneously don't.
In a pandemic, I can see how - removing one potential source of contamination. But in general? Don't know. Maybe anything that makes it easier to part people from their money helps them spend more?
Yeah. That was the bit I could see. I am just dubious about whether that will work at all. Physical shops are simply going to have to adjust. And, to be fair, they seem to be doing so better than a government who appear to be frantically trying to put the economy back to exactly where it was.
Posted on Johns Hopkins GHN website, but originally from the Daily Beast, I think:
"Sturgis As Superspreader: ‘We Knew This Was Going to Happen’
The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally held August 6–15 in Meade County, South Dakota, had all the makings of a superspreader event: More than 500K attendees No testing No mask requirements No vaccination requirements in a county with only 38.3% of residents vaccinated
The aftermath: A 3,400% increase in Meade’s 7-day case counts, with 1 in 3 tests coming back positive Over 1,000% increases in two neighboring counties A 686.8% increase across the state
“We knew this was going to happen,” said Dr. Shankar Kurra of Monument Health in Rapid City.
Lollapalooza in Chicago offered a stark contrast. The 4-day event required proof of vaccination or a negative test from the 385K attendees, 90% of whom were fully vaccinated. There was no spike in cases."
If you go to the motorcycle rally's website their tagline is "We're spreading our wings". Well they've certainly spread something.
Around one in 70 people in private households in England had Covid-19 in the week to August 20, up from one in 80 in the previous week, according to the latest estimates from the Office for National Statistics. One in 70 is the equivalent of about 756,900 people.
Comments
Basil II is both the guy who cried in church after failing in battle, and the chap responsible for the battle, and aftermath, of Kleidion.
A scientific education does that for people.
I find your lack of faith in the vaccines disconcerting to be honest.
Damn, that sounds good.
Minus 320 for 1.
You?
* The appointment of Kate Bingham and the contracts she was authorised to enter into;
* The decision to do our own thing instead of relying upon the brilliance of UDVL and her negotiating team.
* The highly controversial (at the time) decision to delay second doses to vaccinate more with the first dose.
*The brave decision to basically stop the pingdemic by changing the criteria (jury still out).
*The brave decision to end lockdown in the face of ongoing cases (jury still arguably out).
There has been a lot of mucking about with foreign travel, quarantine, the early days of T&T, etc but there has been some brave decision taking too.
Saying it was a symptom of the time is irrelevant, it's either right or it is wrong. End of story.
Just as in a few decades time this culture war nonsense about trans people will be much the same.
https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1430632168087334912?s=20
What's interesting is that the stuff they're talking about is what my university friend has been saying for a few weeks, if he's talking about this stuff then the same conversations are happening all over the world within science.
These are kinds of things the UK should be addressing with intelligence resources.
Granny can be content with her vaccines and avoid seeing her grandchild if she wants. We've done quite enough for granny recently, I think. More than enough.
I've been to two weddings, on countless thousands of miles of train travel, and to several trade fairs this month.
The worried can stay at home. The majority, as far as I can see, are getting on with it. My experience, and the polling on 'numbers still wearing masks' or 'staying at home' suggest to me that what people are saying and what they are doing, no longer correlates.
What an awful scenario it all is.
I don't happen to think that trans rights impact the rights of women at all, I see very little evidence that this is the case.
(Telegraph)
...Oh f*ck!
There is however about sleeping with someone of the same gender, just as there is in terms of adultery etc.
Many religious people still take the view that the practice of homosexuality is wrong even if you should love the sinner.
Thatcher was a religious person as a product of her Methodist upbringing.
However she never went so far as to support making homosexuality illegal, hence she voted to decriminalise it.
However in North Africa and much of the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality remains illegal
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430834820159049733
And stoning adulterers.
I think you're on a sticky wicket here.
Not to mention the prohibition on letting your hair become unkempt.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
"Sean Thomas
We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-need-to-find-the-muscle-memory-of-western-greatness
Typically much of this debate is men telling women what to think.
Allowances can of course be made. Just because you're Welsh doesn't mean you can't play rugby. Nonetheless you get a 1% sympathy bonus.
YouGov have tweeted to say they have "upgraded" their methodology so the numbers are not directly comaprable.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/27/worker-shortages-leave-uk-farms-with-70000-surplus-pigs
Mate of mine works in an abbatoir/meat processing plant, he was saying much the same thing the other day. They were hit hard by covid initially, then the pingdemic and Covid over the past few months, and on top of that staff are leaving in droves - lots of EU staff gone but UK folk also leaving in numbers. Often the younger people, apparently.
The gaps in the local supermarket shelves and freezers are getting bigger and bigger too.
The government need to get a grip on this. If they screw this up, and Xmas is bad as the industry is forecasting, whether people are still thankful for Brexit or not won't matter. People won't be happy.
However while Thatcher may have disagreed with adultery and homosexuality she did not make them illegal or advocate stoning.
The fact she became the first female PM against much sexism from her male colleagues showed that while she could use her religious convictions to guide her (including regular haircuts) she did not believe in a Theocracy and that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, should be the basis for UK law
Hopefully the PM’s wife will make an invaluable intervention.
'This really matters, because around the world we face rising enemies with the Taliban's level of self-regard. The Russians have a nationalist spirit untroubled by futile, divisive culture wars. The Chinese firmly believe they are the Middle Kingdom, destined to rule the world as they did before. Islamists everywhere think Allah is on their side and we are doomed materialists, and the fall of Kabul will only encourage them.
What can we do? We need to find the muscle memory of western greatness. For all the flaws of the West, no civilisation on earth has delivered, to its citizens, so much freedom, so much prosperity, so much human happiness. Until we rediscover this true faith in ourselves, we will flee in fear before those with a cruder yet stronger creed, like the terrified citizens of Phnom Penh and Kabul.'
President Joe Biden, age 78, married to Jill Biden, age 70 and female and owner of Major, a German shepherd aged 3, must bear full responsibility for Donald Trump's negotiations with the Taliban and the hasty retreat and suicide bombings at Kabul airport.
I'm sure that it doesn't have to be all blokes, but I'm sure that you're going to have to demonstrate otherwise.
What if the child wants to drive a Vauxhall Senator at 135mph on the A303?
Edit: I of course have done the latter but only had the mind, not the body or legal status of a child.
Perhaps you'd like to provide an example of where the rights of women have been impacted by giving rights to trans people.
I'm sorry polling disagrees with what you/other women believe, I only pointed out than on average - as far as I can recall - women are more supportive of trans rights than men.
I happen to think it's not an issue but I am happy to understand more from women if they'd like to provide examples.
This child I think is brighter than we suspected.
For good reason. It is literally the name of their country.
In the same way they believe America is beautiful, the English are bold and France is the land of law.
Is there no ideological difference between, for example, being for or against a wealth tax, or for or against higher taxes on high earners etc etc? This sort of stuff used to be the very definition of ideological difference, but I guess I'm behind the times, or something.
I think Mr Thomas is plagiarising our very own Leon!
"Then he would absolutely be in the right place on the A303 to get to his Platoon Commanders Battle Course, or his Anti-Tanks course, or one of several other such courses at establishments at the far end of that road."
Oops!
'SPD-GRÜNE: 15%
CDU/CSU-SPD: 10%
SPD-GRÜNE-LINKE: 7%
CDU/CSU-GRÜNE: 7%
CDU/CSU-FDP: 6%
CDU/CSU-SPD-FDP: 6%'
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1431245617695760385?s=20
The limit on contactless payments will rise from £45 to £100 from October 15, in a bid to get people to spend more in shops. It is the second time in less than two years the limit has been increased - in March 2020 the limit on contactless payments was increased from £30 to £45 amid the coronavirus pandemic. The increase had already been announced by the government earlier this year, but banks had not yet decided when to implement it."
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-08-27/contactless-payment-rise-to-100-sparks-concern-about-crime
Please can you PM me and explain why or how I'm being so stupid or just lay it out here for all to see. I'm up to it!
I absolutely know that there is a very good joke in there and I am frustrated I can't see it.
(And I'm not even joking.)
I mean I do. But simultaneously don't.
"Sturgis As Superspreader: ‘We Knew This Was Going to Happen’
The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally held August 6–15 in Meade County, South Dakota, had all the makings of a superspreader event:
More than 500K attendees
No testing
No mask requirements
No vaccination requirements in a county with only 38.3% of residents vaccinated
The aftermath:
A 3,400% increase in Meade’s 7-day case counts, with 1 in 3 tests coming back positive
Over 1,000% increases in two neighboring counties
A 686.8% increase across the state
“We knew this was going to happen,” said Dr. Shankar Kurra of Monument Health in Rapid City.
Lollapalooza in Chicago offered a stark contrast. The 4-day event required proof of vaccination or a negative test from the 385K attendees, 90% of whom were fully vaccinated. There was no spike in cases."
The sheer idiocy of large swathes of the population has been a real eye-opener.
Soder would probably have been most popular Chancellor of all but the Union idiotically chose Laschet not Soder.
However Laschet could be Vice Chancellor to Scholz still
A quick thread:
A lot of people have asked me this week: Where did this ivermectin obsession come from?
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1431040456364810242
https://www.sturgismotorcyclerally.com/