The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

TimT said:

Leon said:

143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day


Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?

And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?

Yes, indeed. Good question

ONS has data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/


Almost all deaths are age 60+ at moment.

I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.

Get those boosters people.

Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.

But I have no evidence for this.

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?

Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.

It is important to them.

Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.

It's odd.

You do seem to run into these people.
A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.

I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.

I'm not making this up.

I don’t believe you are making it up.

Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?

I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com

I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.

He is strangely silent.

I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.

I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.

But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.

Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.

It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.

CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.

Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?

Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.

It is important to them.

Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.

It's odd.

You do seem to run into these people.
A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.

I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.

I'm not making this up.

I don’t believe you are making it up.

Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?

I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com

I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.

He is strangely silent.

I can't imagine fancying a woman who doesn't want to smash the patriarchy.

Ah, the English disease.

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

39,851 cases

141 deaths

It is still out there

The good news is that 15% a week growth (if that's what it is) is a doubling time of 5 weeks- plenty of time to intervene. It's not the doubling in 3 days we had last spring.

The bad news is that 1 doubling still takes us to 80k cases and over 250 deaths.

We could have got the numbers a lot lower over the summer by being a bit more patient.

By intervene you mean lockdown?

I just can't hack another winter of lockdown. Nor can many people I know. We've discussed it. Just wouldn't do it

Then what else?

We do nothing, except vaccinate more people.

Witty said at the recent presser that people's reticence in going back completely to normal was largely what had kept hospitalisations at a presentable level, with average daily contacts at about half the pre pandemic level. Despite those comments, we've since had the governing party and the PM himself put pressure on people to "return to work". I can say from first hand experience this has fed through firmly into corporate communications. Same for most people I know.

Well before the need for anything resembling a lockdown, the return to "WFH if you can" would be the easiest bullet in the world to fire (unless you are a supremely wealthy chancellor with untold indirect commercial property interests). And it's quite a surprise they haven't already gone down this route until they've boosted groups 1-9. As we have it from the CMO that it is the thing most likely to impact average daily contacts.

The concern will be that in its haste to put the pandemic firmly behind them, the government has missed an open goal that would have prevented any further restrictions this winter.

This is quite the story/ruling.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/06/sheikh-mohammed-hacked-baroness-shackleton-ex-wife-princess/

Personally I went to absolute seed during lockdown. Beard, shorts, bad hair - the lot.

It’s been nice to dress respectably again.

TimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

TimT said:

Leon said:

143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day


Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?

And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?

Yes, indeed. Good question

ONS has data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/


Almost all deaths are age 60+ at moment.

I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.

Get those boosters people.

Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.

But I have no evidence for this.

Infections.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/05/pfizer-covid-jab-90-effective-against-hospitalisation-for-at-least-6-months

turbotubbs said:

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?

The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.

The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:

"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."

I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Fear not. I bet Hitler couldn't knit for toffee.

On which point I will confess something shameful to you. For a long time, and because of that, you talking about knitting a lot, I thought you were a woman.

Not being the sort of guy who shares pictures of his erect member with strangers on the internet it does create some doubt as to my gender and, since I have no reason to be offended, you should have no reason to feel ashamed.

As another male knitter, there is an odd prejudice out there. I have won prizes for my knitting at local shows, and design my own garments. My wife is a recipient of many fine jumpers.

In one of my books is a lighthouse keeper who knitted his own ganseys all his life (a gansey is a traditional knitted jumper worn by fisherman around the UK and in the Netherlands). Historically, before framework knitting, men would be knitters in a profession.

Unfortunate friend of mine used to live in Tooting and commute to central London. He used to knit on the Tube. Got a lot of funny looks.

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?

Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.

It is important to them.

Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.

It's odd.

You do seem to run into these people.
A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.

I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.

I'm not making this up.

I don’t believe you are making it up.

Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?

I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com

I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.

He is strangely silent.

I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.

I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.

But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.

Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.

It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.

CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.

Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.

I bet more young women fancy me than you.

So fuck off, old boy.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

TimT said:

Leon said:

143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day


Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?

And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?

Yes, indeed. Good question

ONS has data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/


Almost all deaths are age 60+ at moment.

I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.

Get those boosters people.

Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.

But I have no evidence for this.

Infections.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/05/pfizer-covid-jab-90-effective-against-hospitalisation-for-at-least-6-months

With 90% of the over 16s single- and 82% double-vaxxed in the UK, I think it's almost time from a society-level public health perspective to welcome high rates of infection - at that level of vaccination, and higher levels for the vulnerable, it will confer levels of protection to those who are unwilling to be vaccinated for whatever reason at very low morbidity and mortality rates.

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day


Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?

They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.

The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating

We know why they won't explain it.

We do?! Why is it?

Sincere question

My question to you is also sincere.

Please answer it.

What question?

See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.

Thoughts based on your experience?

Saying it to you, you mean?

My sister who I live with has tested positive, she says it feels like a bad cold and her energy levels feel low. She is working from home lying on bed watch TV with her laptop tray (she is a textile designer). Hopefully the vacc will do it's job for her and that's all she gets.

Awaiting my PCR result, if it's negative I will have to do a lateral flow before work each day for the next 10 days. Feeling ok for the most part, bit of a headache though that could be anything.

Get your boosters everyone, mine was due today after 7 months since my last dose. Hopefully I am negative and I can get it done next week.

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?

Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.

It is important to them.

Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.

It's odd.

You do seem to run into these people.
A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.

I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.

I'm not making this up.

I don’t believe you are making it up.

Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?

I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com

I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.

He is strangely silent.

I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.

I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.

But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.

Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.

It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.

CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.

Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.

I bet more young women fancy me than you.

So fuck off, old boy.

Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?

Please both stop this before it gets too embarrassing - I take it you both have no idea what the other looks like

isam said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?

Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.

It is important to them.

Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.

It's odd.

You do seem to run into these people.
A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.

I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.

I'm not making this up.

I don’t believe you are making it up.

Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?

I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com

I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.

He is strangely silent.

I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.

I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.

But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.

Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.

It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.

CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.

Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.

I bet more young women fancy me than you.

So fuck off, old boy.

Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?

Please both stop this before it gets too embarrassing - I take it you both have no idea what the other looks like

That’s true. It’s possible Casino Royale looks like a young Sean Connery.

I don’t rule it out.

TimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

TimT said:

Leon said:

143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day


Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?

And is it predominantly 'dying with' or 'dying of'?

Yes, indeed. Good question

ONS has data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/


Almost all deaths are age 60+ at moment.

I fear we are seeing the effects of the vaccine wearing off.

Get those boosters people.

Which effects? Protection against infection? Probably. Protection against hospitalization and death? Not seen much evidence for that. So I think a more likely explanation is that, with kids back at school being the prime spreaders, but more and more breakthrough infections of the vaccinated, that the proportion of the COVID dead who are dying with, rather than of, COVID is increasing significantly.

But I have no evidence for this.

Infections.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/05/pfizer-covid-jab-90-effective-against-hospitalisation-for-at-least-6-months

With 90% of the over 16s single- and 82% double-vaxxed in the UK, I think it's almost time from a society-level public health perspective to welcome high rates of infection - at that level of vaccination, and higher levels for the vulnerable, it will confer levels of protection to those who are unwilling to be vaccinated for whatever reason at very low morbidity and mortality rates.

This seems to me to be the government's plan. Thinking being you'll have a better wall against breakthrough infection through acquired immunity plus vaccine, than just vaccine alone (immune recognition of 28 proteins vs just 1?).

However this judgement was made pre-delta and before Israel's warning on waning immunity (at least with a 3-week Pfizer programme). Whether the Uk government still looks so clever as the weather turns we shall have to wait and see. But it looks increasingly like internationally, "fully vaccinated" will come to mean three doses not two. But on the basis that this government will do the right thing only after exploring every alternative, no crowded commuter trains / meeting rooms for me until the booster is in my arm in a month or so's time.

One of the worst things about that rise to 39K cases is iSAGE will be back on our news channels warning of the apocalypse again.

Farooq said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

isam said:

...

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

PJH said:

Leon said:

PJH said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.

Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.

I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.

I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.

Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.

A lot of Boris-hatred, like yours and kinabalu's, is driven by chippy class-hatred. YOU see a posho who looks down on you, and that makes YOU seethe

Plenty of people don't give much of a fuck about class any more

Not at all. Don't give a shit about that. If that looks like anti-public school prejudice then that's because there was a type of person that seemed to come from that background, but nowhere else. (E.g. Cameron, same background, I don't feel the same about him at all). It's his evident laziness and dishonesty I object to. But genuinely puzzled why others don't see it through the showmanship.

I think a lot of the people who get most irritated by Johnson are actually upper middle class professionals. Though not Etonians necessarily.

If there is a class element to the dislike it's the intra-upper-middle exclusion felt by the hard working grammar school or independent day school kid who has come face to face with the Bullingdon types in their first term at university. The ones who look straight through you as if you don't exist.

Like TMexPM, you mean? Or Major? Or the Blessed Margaret herself?

Cameron is the interesting one, I agree; also Eton and Oxford, but he doesn't set off my hard working sixth form college prejudices either. Perhaps because Dave gave the impression that, despite his advantages he could and would work hard when necessary. Rishi might be the same; I don't rate his political judgement, but I don't think he's a terrible person.

"Cameron is the interesting one, I agree; also Eton and Oxford, but he doesn't set off my hard working sixth form college prejudices either. Perhaps because Dave gave the impression that, despite his advantages he could and would work hard when necessary"

Or perhaps because he was Head of the Remain campaign!

I suspect you will find those with similar views which held Cameron in higher esteem than Johnson were formed 5-10 years before the referendum. Perhaps made stronger because of their roles in Brexit, but (mostly) not formed because of it.

I liked Cameron as PM but the recent lobbying revelations have caused me to move him down a whole drawer. He's not in the bottom drawer with Trump and ilk nor even the 2nd bottom one (where Farage and Johnson live) but he's now in the middle one. Farage, btw, used to be in the middle one (since despite his politics I found him engaging and sincere) but his craven Trumpery in recent times led to him being demoted to the drawer he's in now - the 2nd bottom one with Johnson. Most of the current cabinet are in there too.

Shout out for Nick Clegg there too. He went from top drawer to bottom but one just for joining Facebook.
To think I voted for him in 2010, and felt sorry for him after not voting for him in 2015!

Console yourself in the knowledge that he’s having to work harder than usual, for this week’s $100k wage packet.

jonny83 said:

My sister who I live with has tested positive, she says it feels like a bad cold and her energy levels feel low. She is working from home lying on bed watch TV with her laptop tray (she is a textile designer). Hopefully the vacc will do it's job for her and that's all she gets.

Awaiting my PCR result, if it's negative I will have to do a lateral flow before work each day for the next 10 days. Feeling ok for the most part, bit of a headache though that could be anything.

Get your boosters everyone, mine was due today after 7 months since my last dose. Hopefully I am negative and I can get it done next week.

Just had my third. The 1st two hardly registered on the Richter scale, indeed I had a good workout on the day of the 1st one. Proverbs, 16:18 ??
AND GOOD LUCK.

rottenborough said:

One of the worst things about that rise to 39K cases is iSAGE will be back on our news channels warning of the apocalypse again.

Could someone show me the apocalypse, please?



reporting data again? FFS.....

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day


Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?

They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.

The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating

We know why they won't explain it.

We do?! Why is it?

Sincere question

My question to you is also sincere.

Please answer it.

What question?

See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.

Thoughts based on your experience?

It's just a buzzword. If anything is wrong with the world - esp if you're a woman - then it's "the patriarchy". In the 60s it would have been "the system". Smash the system! Ten years ago "the man". Stick it to the man!

In 5 years it will be replaced by something else

BTW it's not just young women who use it, I have a couple of middle aged female lefty friends who use it, quite unselfconsciously

So, brief rant from me on jobsworths* gone mad:

We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.

We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.

We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.

To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)

The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.

Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?

*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate
** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?

Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.

It is important to them.

Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.

It's odd.

You do seem to run into these people.
A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.

I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.

I'm not making this up.

I don’t believe you are making it up.

Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?

I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com

I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.

He is strangely silent.

I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.

I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.

But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.

Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.

It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.

CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.

Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.

I bet more young women fancy me than you.

So fuck off, old boy.

Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?

Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for.

You're just a tedious troll.

You do a truly amazing impression of Alan Partridge. It’s uncanny.

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

If Hitler told the best joke in the world, what would happen?

The PB Tories would cite it as evidence of BBC lefty bias that he wasn't given a go in the Radio 4 6:30pm comedy slot.

The other day Smithson Jnr recommended a talk by a historian on why Hitler lost WWII, which included this quotation from the Nazi dictator:

"having to change into long trousers was always a misery to me. Even with a temperature of 10 below zero, I used to go about in lederhosen. The feeling of freedom they give you is wonderful. Abandoning my shorts was one of the biggest sacrifices I had to make… Anything up to five degrees below zero I don't even notice. Quite a number of young people of today already wear shorts all the year round; it is just a question of habit. In the future, I shall have an SS Highland Brigade in lederhosen."

I'm the sort of person who will wear shorts all year round. It shouldn't be of any consequence that I have this in common with Hitler, it has no bearing on anti-Semitism. And yet, it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Fear not. I bet Hitler couldn't knit for toffee.

On which point I will confess something shameful to you. For a long time, and because of that, you talking about knitting a lot, I thought you were a woman.

Not being the sort of guy who shares pictures of his erect member with strangers on the internet it does create some doubt as to my gender and, since I have no reason to be offended, you should have no reason to feel ashamed.

Shouldn't make assumptions based on hobbies and interests, though, and your case demonstrated that very well. We have precious few regular female posters, it seems. There was "Beverley" but she hasn't been on here for ages.

France, Harris run off polls

Macron 53%
Le Pen 47%

Macron 55%
Zemmour 45%

Macron 51%
Bertrand 49%

Macron 63%
Melenchon 37%

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1445772633484627969?s=20

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1445683512250540044?s=20

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1445773473221992448?s=20

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1445757866325929984?s=20

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

143 deaths today. Still quite a few people dying every day


Who are they? Has anyone broken down the death stats? Is it the elderly, the co-morbid, or are young healthy people also succumbing? And how many are vaxed?

They're not dying of Covid-19. They're dying with it. And we have no idea what that actually means.

The answers should be easily available. They are not. Frustrating

We know why they won't explain it.

We do?! Why is it?

Sincere question

My question to you is also sincere.

Please answer it.

What question?

See upthread on young women saying patriarchy a lot.

Thoughts based on your experience?

It's just a buzzword. If anything is wrong with the world - esp if you're a woman - then it's "the patriarchy". In the 60s it would have been "the system". Smash the system! Ten years ago "the man". Stick it to the man!

In 5 years it will be replaced by something else

BTW it's not just young women who use it, I have a couple of middle aged female lefty friends who use it, quite unselfconsciously

Thanks. Interesting.

Mr. Eagles, for those of us not au fait with modernist nonsense, what is Telegram?

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

The Supreme Court rules that Holyrood went beyond its powers in 2 bills which judges ruled could affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58794698

An encouraging ruling for Boris and disappointing for Sturgeon as it suggests if Sturgeon went to the SC and asked to overturn the UK government's refusal to allow an indyref2, the court would side with Boris and the UK government much as the highest court in Spain declared Catalonia's attempted independence referendum to not be constitutional

Concerning "incorporat[ion of] aspects of international treaties into Scots law". Relevance doubtful; but not as irrelevant as your insistence that Spanish constitutional law is relevant. .

It's slightly weird to see pipsqueak ex-Tory MSPs crowing about this when the parliament of which they were once members unanimously passed those bills ('Neither bill was controversial' to quote the BBC piece). Not for the first time I can't actually discern any coherence in their position.

They should have just banned the Welsh from playing rugby, it would have been no great loss.

World Rugby is to introduce new laws at the 2027 World Cup that will ban red-green kit clashes to help people with colour vision deficiency (CVD). The measure means Wales or Ireland would have to change jerseys if drawn to play against each other in the tournament or in future fixtures.

Over 300 million people worldwide currently suffer from some form of CVD. The condition is far more prevalent in men, with around one in 12 globally affected by the condition compared to one in 200 women. Red-green colour-blindness is the most common form and is experienced by around 8% of male rugby fans and 0.5% of female supporters.

“From our perspective, if you’re potentially limiting eight per cent of your male audience, that’s a huge number of people who are suddenly switching off,” World Rugby’s research, turf and equipment manager Marc Douglas told the I newspaper.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/06/world-rugby-to-ban-red-green-kit-clashes-help-colour-blind-fans

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, for those of us not au fait with modernist nonsense, what is Telegram?

A messaging app.

Selebian said:

So, brief rant from me on jobsworths* gone mad:

We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.

We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.

We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.

To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)

The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.

Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?

*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate
** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really

That's very interesting. In my new job, the one to which I successfully applied, they didn't ask for references at all.

This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.

Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, for those of us not au fait with modernist nonsense, what is Telegram?

It’s an online private messaging system, similar to Signal and WhatsApp.

Selebian said:

Malmesbury said:

Selebian said:

So, brief rant from me on jobsworths* gone mad:

We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.

We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.

We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.

To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)

The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.

Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?

*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate
** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really

In number of companies I know of, managers have been forbidden by the legal dept. from giving references. All request to HR.

This includes personal references. Everything must go to HR.

Several companies I've encountered don't even ask for references. They assume that the vetting company they employ will contact HR at each company you worked at.

Interesting. That will be where it is coming from then.

Means the end of references I guess. To some extent, who cares, they weren't that useful. But we still ask for references when appointing. If we're not going to provide useful references, we should not ask for them either.

References are a tool that's probably been ruined by legal eagles in all honesty.

Selebian said:

Malmesbury said:

Selebian said:

So, brief rant from me on jobsworths* gone mad:

We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.

We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.

We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.

To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)

The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.

Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?

*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate
** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really

In number of companies I know of, managers have been forbidden by the legal dept. from giving references. All request to HR.

This includes personal references. Everything must go to HR.

Several companies I've encountered don't even ask for references. They assume that the vetting company they employ will contact HR at each company you worked at.

Interesting. That will be where it is coming from then.

Means the end of references I guess. To some extent, who cares, they weren't that useful. But we still ask for references when appointing. If we're not going to provide useful references, we should not ask for them either.

Essentially, the Goode Olde Days of references are dead. Killed by legal rules and fear of being sued.

Not sure that what we have is an improvement. But hey....

Sandpit said:

Selebian said:

So, brief rant from me on jobsworths* gone mad:

We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.

We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.

We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.

To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)

The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.

Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?

*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate
** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really

The worry must be that, if it’s not happening elsewhere, that your students will be disadvantaged by such a standardised response towards a potential employer?

As I understand it, the law changed some time ago and references are no longer covered by qualified privilege. A lot of employers and other institutions have gone down this route.

Mr. Password, I like darning my own socks. Also mended gloves and the hems of jeans a few times (though I'd need a refresher on blanket stitch now).

I like the idea of knitting but haven't gotten around to it.

Casino_Royale said:

Selebian said:

So, brief rant from me on jobsworths* gone mad:

We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.

We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.

We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.

To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)

The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.

Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?

*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate
** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really

That's very interesting. In my new job, the one to which I successfully applied, they didn't ask for references at all.

This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.

Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.

I’m hoping that, by the next time I apply for a CISO position, the lack of any social media profiles will be seen as a positive.

williamglenn said:

A French MP has drafted a resolution calling for French to be made the sole working language of the EU.

https://twitter.com/julienaubert84/status/1445665732813996036

God, that's genius. Some French people really have zero self-awareness. I am sure the Germans, Italians and Spanish will be totally cool with that; and all the Nordics and Eastern Europeans, with their perfect command of English and zero knowledge of French, will be well up for it, too

Delicieux

Anabobazina said:

Is there some confusion in today’s covid numbers? Date of reporting vs date of test?

Extrapolating from what I'm hearing locally, an awful lot of the positives are from school testing. Any percentages on that?

IshmaelZ said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this

"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we
need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature-
whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule,
obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One
of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic.
Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the
risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know
nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be
answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they
do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to
them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."

Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.

AH or JB?

AH

Mind you, I think it was Buchan who wrote that "there are certain things one cannot ask of any white man." But I still read him.

To moisturise?

Yes, he definitely had something about him.
Strange to think he was a fairly close contemporary of James Joyce, two (sort of) products of British culture. Did Orwell ever review any of Buchan's books, would be interesting to know what he thought of him?

Edit: a quick Google suggests not.

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Why do so many young women under the age of 30 say "patriarchy" so much?

Same reason you keep on banging on about the woke so often.

It is important to them.

Nah. They say it almost reflexively (unthinkingly) like please and thank you.

It's odd.

You do seem to run into these people.
A bit like McCarthy and the Communists.

I got it thrown at my yesterday for asking about exfoliating facewash in Boots.

I'm not making this up.

I don’t believe you are making it up.

Is there something in your appearance or demeanour that seems to trigger young women, do you think?

I have no idea. Funnily enough I look and act totally normally in real life. I don't show every young woman my posting history on pb.com

I note that @Leon 's wife (or ex wife?) used to say this a lot too so I'm interested in his views.

He is strangely silent.

I think you are confusing Leon with a previous poster.

I don’t know about patriarchy but all “young people” are decidedly more likely to be very left wing than they were “in my day”.

But that’s a natural response to the existing capitalist set up.

Well, it's certainly true that it's harder for them than it was for me.

It's also possible that they use hyperbolic language "normally" now to communicate in a way I simply don't understand or recognise, and it's not as significant as I think it is because I take the words used at face value.

CR, you are actually NOT THAT OLD.

Young fogeyism is very ageing, no wonder you need moisturiser.

I bet more young women fancy me than you.

So fuck off, old boy.

Lol? You? PB’s premier incel?

Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for.

You're just a tedious troll.

Oh Dear

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

Selebian said:

So, brief rant from me on jobsworths* gone mad:

We've recently finished up with a round of masters students - they submitted their dissertations early last month. Normally, if they're reasonably competent - or think that they are! - they ask supervisors such as myself whether we'd be happy to provide references for employers. We generally say yes.

We've just received guidance that requires us, if asked to actually provide a reference, to forward the request to the student admins who generate an automated report of module grades, attendance etc. And that's it. We're not supposed to add any subjective opinions. We're not supposed to add anything at all other than fact based things such as 'this person was also a member of committee x' etc or 'this person was an author on this paper'.

We're also given a cover letter to use, which states that subjective information is not provided to protect our duty of care to the student and for data protection. It also disclaims any liability for inaccuracy in the data that are provided.

To me, this is nuts. I know a fair bit about data protection (using highly sensitive data in my day job and having to justify the legal basis for that in data and ethics applications) and I can't see any issues here. Such a reference would be useless to me in deciding between candidates and the information will aleady be in the candidates application. It makes the whole exercise completely pointless. References are not a key part of recruitment**, but they can matter, sometimes you can read between the lines which gives you pointers for interview. Or they can help (my boss has told me that my reference from my former employer was quite eye catching - I've never seen it and don't know what was said, but she did say it stood out, presumably not in a bad way as I got the job.)

The students who asked me if I'd provide a reference presumably expected more than this. If I'm contacted for a reference, I'm going to have to think about how to respond.

Is anyone else aware of this happening elsewhere?

*replace with 'woke', 'political correctness' or 'data protection' as appropriate
** there is an argument that they are pretty pointless, really

That's very interesting. In my new job, the one to which I successfully applied, they didn't ask for references at all.

This is now simply something that's done by 'checking you out' online (maybe with a DBS search too) and reviewing your referrals on your LinkedIn profile and otherwise done entirely offline by private investigation of your network and reputation in the industry.

Traditional references are dying out. It's also possiblyconsidered by some to be a bit unWoke and full of unconscious bias too, and therefore very non-U at present.

I’m hoping that, by the next time I apply for a CISO position, the lack of any social media profiles will be seen as a positive.

All the advice I've had in recent weeks - from experts in the industry - is that you need to massively up your profile on social media and LinkedIn these days to win work. That's how it's done.

I'm having a real problem processing that and working out how to respond, particularly since I increasingly detest social media and what show-offs most people are on LinkedIn.

Interesting. I still figure that most companies don’t want the “rockstar” CISO who speaks at conferences, they want the utterly anonymous one who can shake the company into understanding the risks of the 21st century.

Now, there will be publicity-hungry startups looking for the former, but an awful lot of more traditional businesses that need the work doing without the publicity.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IshmaelZ said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

A much better point from Andrew Roberts about invading Russia is that Hitler thought this

"Weather prediction is not a science that can be learnt mechanically. What we
need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature-
whether or not they know anything about isotherms and isobars. As a rule,
obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of uniforms. One
of them will have a humped back, another will be bandy-legged, a third paralytic.
Similarly, one doesn't expect them to live like bureaucrats. They won't run the
risk of being transported from a region they know to another of which they know
nothing—as regards climatological conditions, that's to say. They won't be
answerable to superiors who necessarily know more about the subject than they
do—in virtue of their pips and crowns and who might be tempted to dictate to
them the truths that are vested in a man by virtue of his superior rank."

Which reads to me like a really bad pastiche of John Buchan. A profoundly stupid man.

AH or JB?

AH

Mind you, I think it was Buchan who wrote that "there are certain things one cannot ask of any white man." But I still read him.

You don't need to ask a white man anything, he'll tell you anyway.

That reminds me of the old joke, "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much."

Stuartinromford said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

A fascinating thread in which a Remainer actually "gets it"


"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"


https://twitter.com/v_j_freeman/status/1445656278156529664?s=20

He's got it.

It's not hard, is it?

True, but that cuts both ways.

Remainers are not going to be persuaded of any Brexit benefits either.

And the morality/integrity of each side cancels out- we're all terrible irrational people.

So stand by for a decade of the status quo.
Then a decade of something indistinguishable from EEA.
Then "sod it, we might as well be in the room when the decisions are made" = rejoin.

It's all in the age profile of the Leave vote. The postwar generation who voted out in '75, Leave in '16 and won't be voting at all in '36 or so.

Wishcasting

You think the French will let us back in after AUKUS?

Dream on

Also, the ratchet has been thrown entirely the opposite direction. The UK will slowly but surely drift further and further from the EU, legally, politically, economically, militarily: in every way. In 10 years time the idea of Rejoining will seem insane.

Check the polling on EU membership in nations like Switzerland, Iceland or Norway. They really really really do not want to join

"On average, Norwegian voters are strongly opposed to Norwegian membership in the European Union. Polling averaged over a 10-year period shows around 70% of Norwegians voters are opposed to EU membership."

And the tendency has been for Norway to get MORE EU-sceptic over time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relations#Opinion_polling

Who could have predicted the direction of the pb thread after Boris' conference speech would go like this?

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

A fascinating thread in which a Remainer actually "gets it"


"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"


https://twitter.com/v_j_freeman/status/1445656278156529664?s=20

He's got it.

It's not hard, is it?

True, but that cuts both ways.

Remainers are not going to be persuaded of any Brexit benefits either.

And the morality/integrity of each side cancels out- we're all terrible irrational people.

So stand by for a decade of the status quo.
Then a decade of something indistinguishable from EEA.
Then "sod it, we might as well be in the room when the decisions are made" = rejoin.

It's all in the age profile of the Leave vote. The postwar generation who voted out in '75, Leave in '16 and won't be voting at all in '36 or so.

Wishcasting

You think the French will let us back in after AUKUS?

Dream on

Also, the ratchet has been thrown entirely the opposite direction. The UK will slowly but surely drift further and further from the EU, legally, politically, economically, militarily: in every way. In 10 years time the idea of Rejoining will seem insane.

Check the polling on EU membership in nations like Switzerland, Iceland or Norway. They really really really do not want to join

"On average, Norwegian voters are strongly opposed to Norwegian membership in the European Union. Polling averaged over a 10-year period shows around 70% of Norwegians voters are opposed to EU membership."

And the tendency has been for Norway to get MORE EU-sceptic over time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relations#Opinion_polling

Norway's over a trillion US $ in the black.

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

A fascinating thread in which a Remainer actually "gets it"


"I totally understand this sentiment. I voted Remain & would do again. That said, a realisation I have come to recently is those who voted Leave simply didn’t want to be governed by the EU so any problems flowing from leaving are just obstacles rather than the calamity Remain sees"


https://twitter.com/v_j_freeman/status/1445656278156529664?s=20

He's got it.

It's not hard, is it?

The flip side of that is another set of people seeing those who have imposed problems on them dismissing that entirely.

Which is not so hard to get, either.