Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

At 20% both Trump and Biden are value in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • RobD said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    I’d thought the NT examples are from a time when gay people were marginalised, ie they could be imprisoned for pursuing their preferred form of sexual activity. Is that incorrect?
    I thought the example Charles was giving was contemporary, of a living person.
    I didn't get that impression.
    However since Chuck's recounted the story and his outrage at it several times, if the bloke was extant one might wonder how he'd feel about some rando amplifying it on a betting forum.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,708

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Most of the time it is people bemoaning what they have just read on twitter. We can all live without twitter, whereas we are stuck with the government.
  • kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    My grandfather was left handed and forced to write with his right hand, and developed a life long stutter as a result. My daughter is left handed and has an easier time of it although some things are still difficult.
  • TimS said:

    So perhaps British political success does come down to one thing: can you pull off performing stunts and looking silly but get away with it?

    +
    Boris: too many examples to mention
    Thatcher: riding in a tank
    Blair: heading football with Keegan
    Farage: plane crash

    -
    May: dancing
    Hague: baseball cap at theme park
    Keir: HGV lesson
    Kinnock: beach walk

    etc.

    Keir: Boxing like a pansy, wallpaper shopping, the "Johnson variant"

    and I think EdM deserves a shout, even if Bacon Sarnie wasn't a 'stunt', he had the Ed Stone too

    plus, I don't think Farage was meant to be doing a stunt!
    Re Ed Miliband he was on Sky this morning and answering Burley's demands to say sorry he said all politicians should say sorry collectively

    Fair play to him
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    MaxPB said:

    Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

    The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

    It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

    Question from the back. What exactly are the IFS forecasting will be in surplus in 2024/25?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,616

    TimS said:

    So perhaps British political success does come down to one thing: can you pull off performing stunts and looking silly but get away with it?

    +
    Boris: too many examples to mention
    Thatcher: riding in a tank
    Blair: heading football with Keegan
    Farage: plane crash

    -
    May: dancing
    Hague: baseball cap at theme park
    Keir: HGV lesson
    Kinnock: beach walk

    etc.

    Keir: Boxing like a pansy, wallpaper shopping, the "Johnson variant"

    and I think EdM deserves a shout, even if Bacon Sarnie wasn't a 'stunt', he had the Ed Stone too

    plus, I don't think Farage was meant to be doing a stunt!
    Re Ed Miliband he was on Sky this morning and answering Burley's demands to say sorry he said all politicians should say sorry collectively

    Fair play to him
    Sorry for what? I'm all for a collective apology, but wondering whether it was over something specific?

    Most politicians probably have something to say sorry for, but I suspect on any particular issue there will be some who were right/blameless. I don't feel Hunt for example has to say sorry over the pandemic, even though I think he's overdue some other apologies.
  • kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Its not the same as gays or other minorities but its certainly an issue.

    My granddad was a child during the war and is left-handed. He was taught that he had to write with his right-hand and could be caned if he used the left-hand to drill it out of him when he was young. His handwriting was always awful as a result because he never learnt to write properly with the hand he should have been using.

    My wife and I are both right-handed, but our daughter is left-handed and while the attitude is different now to granddad's day, there's still issues. When teaching her to write all the materials the school used and sent home for homework are designed for right-handed letter formation. Lefties should write the letters differently but the school didn't offer that to her, we had to go online and download our own forms to print out to help her with learning her letter formation. Eventually the teacher started doing the same thing but it took a lot of back and forth before she started getting work for a left-handed individual instead of a right-handed one and less fussy parents may not have dealt with the issue.
  • RobD said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    I’d thought the NT examples are from a time when gay people were marginalised, ie they could be imprisoned for pursuing their preferred form of sexual activity. Is that incorrect?
    I thought the example Charles was giving was contemporary, of a living person.
    I believe it is Robert Ketton-Cremer, who died in 1969 (two years after homosexuality was legalised), but I stand to be corrected.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,616
    RobD said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    I’d thought the NT examples are from a time when gay people were marginalised, ie they could be imprisoned for pursuing their preferred form of sexual activity. Is that incorrect?
    I thought the example Charles was giving was contemporary, of a living person.
    If it is, then (as told) the NT could be on the hook for data protection violations (and sensitive personal data at that). If the person is deceased, then that doesn't apply.

    I'd assumed the property was willed to the NT.
  • Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I hold no pen for Boris and I really don't understand why we seem to begrudge all PMs a holiday.

    Johnson's are secretive, frequent and ALWAYS paid for by somebody else.
    So what....
    If you are in a job where conflict of interest can occur having a holiday paid for by someone else is rather important even if no conflict occurs. I had such a role before I retired and I would never have done that.
    As longvas it is decared its not an issue. Blair had lots of holidays paid for by others eg Branson
    Such hospitality really should be subject to benefit-in-kind rules for ministers. If it’s £20k a week to rent a house, then it attracts a £9,000 (45%, his marginal rate) income tax liability.
    I suspect there is an argument that were it not for security reasons he would be heading somewhere far cheaper...
    Oh I’m sure ministers would like to make that argument, and it’s not the PM’s fault that he has to travel everywhere with half a dozen policemen - but he knew what he signed up for, and has the rest of his life to take expensive holidays.

    The PM’s generic personal cost of living is minimal, they have no day-to-day accommodation nor transport costs to pay out of a £150k salary.
    I thought well of Cameron for his regular easyjet flights, when it would have been easy for him to ask a friend/donor/potential peer for a personal jet. With hindsight and the lobbying farrago it seems he only did this because it was electorally the better approach rather than for moral reasons, but still, its of some value to have our leaders waiting til they leave before taking the cash, rather than doing it when in office.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655

    MaxPB said:

    Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

    The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

    It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

    Question from the back. What exactly are the IFS forecasting will be in surplus in 2024/25?
    Tory votes?
  • tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    You think the NT doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuals too?

    There are plenty of loons on your side too - your post alone shows how tone-deaf you are to seeing this - and
    you should read my post on English Heritage for an example of how to do it.

    Unfortunately, the NT leadership have been too obstinate and ignorant for too long though, so have to go.
    To be honest I have visited loads of NT properties and I don't recall ever seeing anything about homosexuals. Perhaps there was but I didn't notice it, because gay people are just a normal part of the world I live in. This guy spent his entire statement frothing about them. I have no interest in seeing the leadership at the NT replaced by a motley crew of gay-bashers and climate change deniers.
    A really big problem with the culture wars is that partisan hyperventilating posts like this scoop up more that twice as many likes as the well-balanced English Heritage one I posted earlier.

    That tells us so much about why we're in the pickle we are, and why social media algorithms work the way they do.
    I liked the bits of your English Heritage post about the position of their leader, but not the partisan conclusion - I don't know whether the current leadership of the NT needs to go, or if they're close enough to the English Heritage position that I'd be content with them.

    So it was the partisan parts of your post that put me off. A hitherto silent half of a like from me regardless, and I did appreciate it.
    I was in this position too. CR's posts are always eloquent and contain much good sense, but often go ultra-partisan in the final paragraph making them hard to "like". Incidentally CR I'm not sure why you think I need to apologise to you so please accept a Boris-style "I'm sorry if you were offended."
  • RobD said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    I’d thought the NT examples are from a time when gay people were marginalised, ie they could be imprisoned for pursuing their preferred form of sexual activity. Is that incorrect?
    I thought the example Charles was giving was contemporary, of a living person.
    I believe it is Robert Ketton-Cremer, who died in 1969 (two years after homosexuality was legalised), but I stand to be corrected.
    Wait till folk hear about Wiki!

    'He was a closet homosexual, at a time when homosexual acts were still criminalised though close friends were aware of his sexuality.'
  • kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,594

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Its not the same as gays or other minorities but its certainly an issue.

    My granddad was a child during the war and is left-handed. He was taught that he had to write with his right-hand and could be caned if he used the left-hand to drill it out of him when he was young. His handwriting was always awful as a result because he never learnt to write properly with the hand he should have been using.

    My wife and I are both right-handed, but our daughter is left-handed and while the attitude is different now to granddad's day, there's still issues. When teaching her to write all the materials the school used and sent home for homework are designed for right-handed letter formation. Lefties should write the letters differently but the school didn't offer that to her, we had to go online and download our own forms to print out to help her with learning her letter formation. Eventually the teacher started doing the same thing but it took a lot of back and forth before she started getting work for a left-handed individual instead of a right-handed one and less fussy parents may not have dealt with the issue.
    I quite enjoy being a left hander, although my writing is appalling and of course because I can't see what I am writing it has the potential to come as a surprise when I see it (no not really).

    It definitely gave me an edge when I used to play squash competitively.

    Because when I was young there were no left handed things I am right handed when using scissors, peelers, playing cards etc. I can't actually use left handed implements that didn't exist when I was young.

    Biggest complication in my life seems to be rotating the ironing board when my wife and I swap the ironing.

    I had to put in a pop up socket on our work surface to use electric mixers rather than the wall socket on the other end, but this is a first world issue and I suspect isn't going to be something I should raise with my MP.
  • kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,903

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    But only in right-hand-drive cars!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,011

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
  • tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    You think the NT doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuals too?

    There are plenty of loons on your side too - your post alone shows how tone-deaf you are to seeing this - and
    you should read my post on English Heritage for an example of how to do it.

    Unfortunately, the NT leadership have been too obstinate and ignorant for too long though, so have to go.
    To be honest I have visited loads of NT properties and I don't recall ever seeing anything about homosexuals. Perhaps there was but I didn't notice it, because gay people are just a normal part of the world I live in. This guy spent his entire statement frothing about them. I have no interest in seeing the leadership at the NT replaced by a motley crew of gay-bashers and climate change deniers.
    A really big problem with the culture wars is that partisan hyperventilating posts like this scoop up more that twice as many likes as the well-balanced English Heritage one I posted earlier.

    That tells us so much about why we're in the pickle we are, and why social media algorithms work the way they do.
    I liked the bits of your English Heritage post about the position of their leader, but not the partisan conclusion - I don't know whether the current leadership of the NT needs to go, or if they're close enough to the English Heritage position that I'd be content with them.

    So it was the partisan parts of your post that put me off. A hitherto silent half of a like from me regardless, and I did appreciate it.
    I was in this position too. CR's posts are always eloquent and contain much good sense, but often go ultra-partisan in the final paragraph making them hard to "like". Incidentally CR I'm not sure why you think I need to apologise to you so please accept a Boris-style "I'm sorry if you were offended."
    Yes, splitting his post in two would have got a like from me for the top half as well. It was an interesting letter, even though I have no real interest in the subject.
  • Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I hold no pen for Boris and I really don't understand why we seem to begrudge all PMs a holiday.

    Johnson's are secretive, frequent and ALWAYS paid for by somebody else.
    So what....
    If you are in a job where conflict of interest can occur having a holiday paid for by someone else is rather important even if no conflict occurs. I had such a role before I retired and I would never have done that.
    As longvas it is decared its not an issue. Blair had lots of holidays paid for by others eg Branson
    Such hospitality really should be subject to benefit-in-kind rules for ministers. If it’s £20k a week to rent a house, then it attracts a £9,000 (45%, his marginal rate) income tax liability.
    I suspect there is an argument that were it not for security reasons he would be heading somewhere far cheaper...
    Oh I’m sure ministers would like to make that argument, and it’s not the PM’s fault that he has to travel everywhere with half a dozen policemen - but he knew what he signed up for, and has the rest of his life to take expensive holidays.

    The PM’s generic personal cost of living is minimal, they have no day-to-day accommodation nor transport costs to pay out of a £150k salary.
    I thought well of Cameron for his regular easyjet flights, when it would have been easy for him to ask a friend/donor/potential peer for a personal jet. With hindsight and the lobbying farrago it seems he only did this because it was electorally the better approach rather than for moral reasons, but still, its of some value to have our leaders waiting til they leave before taking the cash, rather than doing it when in office.
    Didn't he similarly whip his kids out of state schools faster than you could say "don't talk like Pritti Patel" as soon as he left office? At least Gove's stance there seems to be genuine.
  • Selebian said:

    TimS said:

    So perhaps British political success does come down to one thing: can you pull off performing stunts and looking silly but get away with it?

    +
    Boris: too many examples to mention
    Thatcher: riding in a tank
    Blair: heading football with Keegan
    Farage: plane crash

    -
    May: dancing
    Hague: baseball cap at theme park
    Keir: HGV lesson
    Kinnock: beach walk

    etc.

    Keir: Boxing like a pansy, wallpaper shopping, the "Johnson variant"

    and I think EdM deserves a shout, even if Bacon Sarnie wasn't a 'stunt', he had the Ed Stone too

    plus, I don't think Farage was meant to be doing a stunt!
    Re Ed Miliband he was on Sky this morning and answering Burley's demands to say sorry he said all politicians should say sorry collectively

    Fair play to him
    Sorry for what? I'm all for a collective apology, but wondering whether it was over something specific?

    Most politicians probably have something to say sorry for, but I suspect on any particular issue there will be some who were right/blameless. I don't feel Hunt for example has to say sorry over the pandemic, even though I think he's overdue some other apologies.
    He was apologising for the way all politicians handled covid in the early days
  • Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I hold no pen for Boris and I really don't understand why we seem to begrudge all PMs a holiday.

    Johnson's are secretive, frequent and ALWAYS paid for by somebody else.
    So what....
    If you are in a job where conflict of interest can occur having a holiday paid for by someone else is rather important even if no conflict occurs. I had such a role before I retired and I would never have done that.
    As longvas it is decared its not an issue. Blair had lots of holidays paid for by others eg Branson
    Such hospitality really should be subject to benefit-in-kind rules for ministers. If it’s £20k a week to rent a house, then it attracts a £9,000 (45%, his marginal rate) income tax liability.
    I suspect there is an argument that were it not for security reasons he would be heading somewhere far cheaper...
    Oh I’m sure ministers would like to make that argument, and it’s not the PM’s fault that he has to travel everywhere with half a dozen policemen - but he knew what he signed up for, and has the rest of his life to take expensive holidays.

    The PM’s generic personal cost of living is minimal, they have no day-to-day accommodation nor transport costs to pay out of a £150k salary.
    I thought well of Cameron for his regular easyjet flights, when it would have been easy for him to ask a friend/donor/potential peer for a personal jet. With hindsight and the lobbying farrago it seems he only did this because it was electorally the better approach rather than for moral reasons, but still, its of some value to have our leaders waiting til they leave before taking the cash, rather than doing it when in office.
    Didn't he similarly whip his kids out of state schools faster than you could say "don't talk like Pritti Patel" as soon as he left office? At least Gove's stance there seems to be genuine.
    I have no idea.

    I think if a PM feels a duty to behave a bit more like Joe Average when PM and lord it up afterwards that is many magnitudes better than one who has no shame in matters of gifts, lifestyle and patronage, so would not think badly of Cameron in that example at all. The lobbying is different.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,196

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    Fanning out cards

    Yes, left handedness (And footedness) is a big advantage in most sports.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,616

    RobD said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    I’d thought the NT examples are from a time when gay people were marginalised, ie they could be imprisoned for pursuing their preferred form of sexual activity. Is that incorrect?
    I thought the example Charles was giving was contemporary, of a living person.
    I believe it is Robert Ketton-Cremer, who died in 1969 (two years after homosexuality was legalised), but I stand to be corrected.
    Having Googled that, it seems a bit crass and insensitive of the NT - you would have thought they would have consulted with near family (I accept godchildren are debatable for that definition) for someone who died recently enough to have living family/friends who might object to his story being told in this way.

    (I withdraw that comment if there were nearer family who were in favour of the NT's actions and who were consulted)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,138

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    Do you know he was gay? Do the NT? A simple observation of "a private man who never married" would be both factually correct and state the case no further than the known facts.
    As Mr C says, does it matter? I agree with him, some people do try to make a mountain out of a molehill. If someone's dead, and, as the saying goes, the horses haven't been frightened, why make anything of it. He left no direct descendants, so we've got this lovely property.
    End of!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,583
    edited October 2021
    I bow to no one in my dislike of Johnson but I will say this for him. He inspires an affection which goes way beyond that which is normally afforded to politicians in the UK.

    It's the sort that had grown men crossing themselves at the feet of Eva Peron or bursting into the White House for the love of Donald Trump but virtually unknown in the more cynical cities of Northern Europe.

    I've just flicked through the last few threads and there are three or four whose closest partners would go green with envy.

    Perhaps that would be a more interesting header ISAM than your suggested "How crap is Starmer?'
  • In today's episode of Etymology Etcetera, I'll be looking at the violence of sarcasm

    It comes to us via Latin from the Greek word sarkasmos which means a taunt or a sneer. This, though, was a metaphor in Greek, and derives from an earlier word sarkazein, which means 'to strip the flesh off'. So a really 'cutting' joke in today's parlance was a 'flesh stripping' in ancient Greece!

    The Greek word for flesh: sarx, which makes up the first part of sarcasm, is also the opening part of sarcophagus. The second part is from the Greek phagein, which means to eat. 'Sarcophagus' was first used in Greek to describe the flesh eating limestone used to make coffins
  • kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Its not the same as gays or other minorities but its certainly an issue.

    My granddad was a child during the war and is left-handed. He was taught that he had to write with his right-hand and could be caned if he used the left-hand to drill it out of him when he was young. His handwriting was always awful as a result because he never learnt to write properly with the hand he should have been using.

    My wife and I are both right-handed, but our daughter is left-handed and while the attitude is different now to granddad's day, there's still issues. When teaching her to write all the materials the school used and sent home for homework are designed for right-handed letter formation. Lefties should write the letters differently but the school didn't offer that to her, we had to go online and download our own forms to print out to help her with learning her letter formation. Eventually the teacher started doing the same thing but it took a lot of back and forth before she started getting work for a left-handed individual instead of a right-handed one and less fussy parents may not have dealt with the issue.
    Ah but there's the rub. Until the invention of ball-point pens (or pencils!) you had to write right-handed because otherwise you'd smear the still-wet ink across the page with your left fingers following behind the text, unless you developed an odd way of holding the pen high up.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,446

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Yes, people generally post to complain, only rarely to say how great things are.

    I think that's linked up with the proven fact that people who follow the news closely are generally much less happy and have lower life-satisfaction than those that don't. The news is generally a succession of disasters, after all, and only rarely do they highlight things like new cures for cancer, etc.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,138
    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
    It's a bit odd with an automatic, too!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,949
    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    I am left-handed and have no idea what the issue is.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,594
    edited October 2021

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    You know of course I deliberately put that one in so someone would ask :smiley:

    The numbers are in only one set of opposite corners. When you fan out as a left hander you can only see the top card. The easy solution is to put the numbers in all 4 corners, but left handers tend to hold their cards as right handers instead.

    Agree re sports. Not just team sports. It was definitely an advantage for me when playing competitive squash as the backhand and forehand are reversed.
  • I have to say that I find the criticism of Johnson taking a holiday, as odd. Of course he should be able to take a holiday.

    There's so much to attack him for, being utterly useless is a good start but I think taking a holiday seems a pointless line of attack
  • tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
    Try writing your destination onto a touch screen with your wrong hand – while looking at the road.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,804

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    You think the NT doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuals too?

    There are plenty of loons on your side too - your post alone shows how tone-deaf you are to seeing this - and
    you should read my post on English Heritage for an example of how to do it.

    Unfortunately, the NT leadership have been too obstinate and ignorant for too long though, so have to go.
    To be honest I have visited loads of NT properties and I don't recall ever seeing anything about homosexuals. Perhaps there was but I didn't notice it, because gay people are just a normal part of the world I live in. This guy spent his entire statement frothing about them. I have no interest in seeing the leadership at the NT replaced by a motley crew of gay-bashers and climate change deniers.
    A really big problem with the culture wars is that partisan hyperventilating posts like this scoop up more that twice as many likes as the well-balanced English Heritage one I posted earlier.

    That tells us so much about why we're in the pickle we are, and why social media algorithms work the way they do.
    I liked the bits of your English Heritage post about the position of their leader, but not the partisan conclusion - I don't know whether the current leadership of the NT needs to go, or if they're close enough to the English Heritage position that I'd be content with them.

    So it was the partisan parts of your post that put me off. A hitherto silent half of a like from me regardless, and I did appreciate it.
    I was in this position too. CR's posts are always eloquent and contain much good sense, but often go ultra-partisan in the final paragraph making them hard to "like". Incidentally CR I'm not sure why you think I need to apologise to you so please accept a Boris-style "I'm sorry if you were offended."
    You said the Restore Trust person was a loon and deeply-obsessed and troubled by gay-people, and then you associated me with this by saying he also found diversity forms "deeply triggering".
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,011
    edited October 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    Fanning out cards

    Yes, left handedness (And footedness) is a big advantage in most sports.
    What sports can you not play left-handed?

    EDITED as Google suggests there are a few.
  • Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Yes, people generally post to complain, only rarely to say how great things are.

    I think that's linked up with the proven fact that people who follow the news closely are generally much less happy and have lower life-satisfaction than those that don't. The news is generally a succession of disasters, after all, and only rarely do they highlight things like new cures for cancer, etc.
    The kind of thing BBC should do, as a publicly funded broadcaster with a different mandate to corporate TV, is run a prominent good news only daily TV programme. It would make a real psychological difference to the country, as well as shine light on some of the amazing positive things ordinary people do for each other on a daily basis.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,804

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    You think the NT doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuals too?

    There are plenty of loons on your side too - your post alone shows how tone-deaf you are to seeing this - and
    you should read my post on English Heritage for an example of how to do it.

    Unfortunately, the NT leadership have been too obstinate and ignorant for too long though, so have to go.
    To be honest I have visited loads of NT properties and I don't recall ever seeing anything about homosexuals. Perhaps there was but I didn't notice it, because gay people are just a normal part of the world I live in. This guy spent his entire statement frothing about them. I have no interest in seeing the leadership at the NT replaced by a motley crew of gay-bashers and climate change deniers.
    A really big problem with the culture wars is that partisan hyperventilating posts like this scoop up more that twice as many likes as the well-balanced English Heritage one I posted earlier.

    That tells us so much about why we're in the pickle we are, and why social media algorithms work the way they do.
    I liked the bits of your English Heritage post about the position of their leader, but not the partisan conclusion - I don't know whether the current leadership of the NT needs to go, or if they're close enough to the English Heritage position that I'd be content with them.

    So it was the partisan parts of your post that put me off. A hitherto silent half of a like from me regardless, and I did appreciate it.
    Fair enough, although I do wonder if that would still have been the case even if I'd eliminated the final paragraph.

    And it doesn't stop people liking OLB's very partisan post.
  • Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    Do you know he was gay? Do the NT? A simple observation of "a private man who never married" would be both factually correct and state the case no further than the known facts.
    As Mr C says, does it matter? I agree with him, some people do try to make a mountain out of a molehill. If someone's dead, and, as the saying goes, the horses haven't been frightened, why make anything of it. He left no direct descendants, so we've got this lovely property.
    End of!
    I've heard people say that that Alexander the Great bloke was inclined to a bit of man love. Revealing that is an absolute DISGRACE!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,138

    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
    Try writing your destination onto a touch screen with your wrong hand – while looking at the road.
    I'm not ENTIRELY sure that complies with the rules about being aware of the road at all times!
  • tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
    Try writing your destination onto a touch screen with your wrong hand – while looking at the road.
    Isn't it against the law to be using touch screen navigation while you're on the road though?

    You're supposed to use handsfree or pull over to enter any navigation commands.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,138

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Yes, people generally post to complain, only rarely to say how great things are.

    I think that's linked up with the proven fact that people who follow the news closely are generally much less happy and have lower life-satisfaction than those that don't. The news is generally a succession of disasters, after all, and only rarely do they highlight things like new cures for cancer, etc.
    The kind of thing BBC should do, as a publicly funded broadcaster with a different mandate to corporate TV, is run a prominent good news only daily TV programme. It would make a real psychological difference to the country, as well as shine light on some of the amazing positive things ordinary people do for each other on a daily basis.
    Pudsey has at least an annual slot!
  • tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    Fanning out cards

    Yes, left handedness (And footedness) is a big advantage in most sports.
    What sports can you not play left-handed?

    EDITED as Google suggests there are a few.
    Polo, so the horses do not crash into each other. As an aside, it is to Ronnie O'Sullivan's great advantage that he can use a cue in either hand in situations where most players need to use a rest.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,594
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    Fanning out cards

    Yes, left handedness (And footedness) is a big advantage in most sports.
    What sports can you not play left-handed?

    EDITED as Google suggests there are a few.
    Hockey
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,446

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Yes, people generally post to complain, only rarely to say how great things are.

    I think that's linked up with the proven fact that people who follow the news closely are generally much less happy and have lower life-satisfaction than those that don't. The news is generally a succession of disasters, after all, and only rarely do they highlight things like new cures for cancer, etc.
    The kind of thing BBC should do, as a publicly funded broadcaster with a different mandate to corporate TV, is run a prominent good news only daily TV programme. It would make a real psychological difference to the country, as well as shine light on some of the amazing positive things ordinary people do for each other on a daily basis.
    Maybe, but would anybody watch it? Or would all the shows be very samey after a while?

    Reading the English-language official Communist press in China, which is basically a succession of good news stories about the People's Republic, with occasional snippets of bad news from Abroad, you get bored pretty quickly.

    However, your idea is certainly worth a go.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,708
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    You know of course I deliberately put that one in so someone would ask :smiley:

    The numbers are in only one set of opposite corners. When you fan out as a left hander you can only see the top card. The easy solution is to put the numbers in all 4 corners, but left handers tend to hold their cards as right handers instead.

    Agree re sports. Not just team sports. It was definitely an advantage for me when playing competitive squash as the backhand and forehand are reversed.
    Don't right handed people hold cards in their left hand (so that they can pick from the hand with their right hand)? Is that what you're talking about?
  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    You know of course I deliberately put that one in so someone would ask :smiley:

    The numbers are in only one set of opposite corners. When you fan out as a left hander you can only see the top card. The easy solution is to put the numbers in all 4 corners, but left handers tend to hold their cards as right handers instead.

    Agree re sports. Not just team sports. It was definitely an advantage for me when playing competitive squash as the backhand and forehand are reversed.
    Its a strange one, there seem plenty of playing card brands on the market with numbers in all 4 corners, but they are not in the majority. Why are the other brands sticking to 2 corners?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,138

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    Do you know he was gay? Do the NT? A simple observation of "a private man who never married" would be both factually correct and state the case no further than the known facts.
    As Mr C says, does it matter? I agree with him, some people do try to make a mountain out of a molehill. If someone's dead, and, as the saying goes, the horses haven't been frightened, why make anything of it. He left no direct descendants, so we've got this lovely property.
    End of!
    I've heard people say that that Alexander the Great bloke was inclined to a bit of man love. Revealing that is an absolute DISGRACE!
    I read somewhere that the Spartans used to encourage homosexual affection among pairs of soldiers, on the fgrounds that pairs of lovers would fight savagely to defend each other.

    Applies of course to hand to hand combat. Don't think it works as well operating a drone from the mountains of Nebraska or Colorado.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,320
    MaxPB said:

    I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

    Yes the pandemic has shown that most of the political class and media are barely numerate. It's a puzzle how anything gets done in this country. I can only assume that despite all the bloviating in parliament that at the end of the day most ministers simply do what their civil servants tell them to do.
  • tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
    Try writing your destination onto a touch screen with your wrong hand – while looking at the road.
    Isn't it against the law to be using touch screen navigation while you're on the road though?

    You're supposed to use handsfree or pull over to enter any navigation commands.
    I've heard drivers are supposed to stop at red lights and obey speed limits. But in any case, it will still be easier left-handed when stationary. Then there is adjusting the temperature and radio station via 17 menu layers because pressing a button is too old-fashioned.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,594
    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    I am left-handed and have no idea what the issue is.
    See answer in other posts. It is the fanning out of the cards. Like me I would guess you play righthanded. For other than those who are extremely left handed it isn't an issue.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,412
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    Fanning out cards

    Yes, left handedness (And footedness) is a big advantage in most sports.
    What sports can you not play left-handed?

    EDITED as Google suggests there are a few.
    Hockey
    Polo?
    Edit: beaten to it by a nose!
  • Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Yes, people generally post to complain, only rarely to say how great things are.

    I think that's linked up with the proven fact that people who follow the news closely are generally much less happy and have lower life-satisfaction than those that don't. The news is generally a succession of disasters, after all, and only rarely do they highlight things like new cures for cancer, etc.
    The kind of thing BBC should do, as a publicly funded broadcaster with a different mandate to corporate TV, is run a prominent good news only daily TV programme. It would make a real psychological difference to the country, as well as shine light on some of the amazing positive things ordinary people do for each other on a daily basis.
    Maybe, but would anybody watch it? Or would all the shows be very samey after a while?

    Reading the English-language official Communist press in China, which is basically a succession of good news stories about the People's Republic, with occasional snippets of bad news from Abroad, you get bored pretty quickly.

    However, your idea is certainly worth a go.
    With the BBC, I don't think viewing audience is "that" important.

    If normal BBC news gets 1m viewers, and good news at the same time only got 0.2m viewers that wouldn't bother me in the slightest as the other 0.8m still have 24 hr rolling normal BBC news, plus Sky/ITV/C4/GB/internet and press news available so are not missing out.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,455
    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,708

    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
    Try writing your destination onto a touch screen with your wrong hand – while looking at the road.
    Isn't it against the law to be using touch screen navigation while you're on the road though?

    You're supposed to use handsfree or pull over to enter any navigation commands.
    I've heard drivers are supposed to stop at red lights and obey speed limits. But in any case, it will still be easier left-handed when stationary. Then there is adjusting the temperature and radio station via 17 menu layers because pressing a button is too old-fashioned.
    Waze is voice activated. Aren't other navigation systems also?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Yes, people generally post to complain, only rarely to say how great things are.

    I think that's linked up with the proven fact that people who follow the news closely are generally much less happy and have lower life-satisfaction than those that don't. The news is generally a succession of disasters, after all, and only rarely do they highlight things like new cures for cancer, etc.
    I post nothing but positivity. Weathers great in Marbella.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/eykx8xkr3#?date=2021-10-13
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Yes, people generally post to complain, only rarely to say how great things are.

    I think that's linked up with the proven fact that people who follow the news closely are generally much less happy and have lower life-satisfaction than those that don't. The news is generally a succession of disasters, after all, and only rarely do they highlight things like new cures for cancer, etc.
    The kind of thing BBC should do, as a publicly funded broadcaster with a different mandate to corporate TV, is run a prominent good news only daily TV programme. It would make a real psychological difference to the country, as well as shine light on some of the amazing positive things ordinary people do for each other on a daily basis.
    Isn't that the purpose of the one show - albeit with a couple of sales pitches (interviews) and some other public information announcements.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,594

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    You know of course I deliberately put that one in so someone would ask :smiley:

    The numbers are in only one set of opposite corners. When you fan out as a left hander you can only see the top card. The easy solution is to put the numbers in all 4 corners, but left handers tend to hold their cards as right handers instead.

    Agree re sports. Not just team sports. It was definitely an advantage for me when playing competitive squash as the backhand and forehand are reversed.
    Its a strange one, there seem plenty of playing card brands on the market with numbers in all 4 corners, but they are not in the majority. Why are the other brands sticking to 2 corners?
    I guess because it really isn't an issue. Us left handers are adaptable.
    TOPPING said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    You know of course I deliberately put that one in so someone would ask :smiley:

    The numbers are in only one set of opposite corners. When you fan out as a left hander you can only see the top card. The easy solution is to put the numbers in all 4 corners, but left handers tend to hold their cards as right handers instead.

    Agree re sports. Not just team sports. It was definitely an advantage for me when playing competitive squash as the backhand and forehand are reversed.
    Don't right handed people hold cards in their left hand (so that they can pick from the hand with their right hand)? Is that what you're talking about?
    If you fan out in the other hand you can't see the numbers. To be honest I have never heard a left hander complain about it. We adapt.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,708
    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,254
    glw said:

    MaxPB said:

    I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

    Yes the pandemic has shown that most of the political class and media are barely numerate. It's a puzzle how anything gets done in this country. I can only assume that despite all the bloviating in parliament that at the end of the day most ministers simply do what their civil servants tell them to do.
    What is interesting is the savage dislike of numbers that creeps out among the political class.

    Reminds me of the stories of the Royal Navy in the 1920's - after WWI an anti-intellectualism spread. Junior officers who wrote scientifically or studied problems systematically were accused of "Blinding their superiors with science"....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,254
    Roger said:

    I bow to no one in my dislike of Johnson but I will say this for him. He inspires an affection which goes way beyond that which is normally afforded to politicians in the UK.

    It's the sort that had grown men crossing themselves at the feet of Eva Peron or bursting into the White House for the love of Donald Trump but virtually unknown in the more cynical cities of Northern Europe.

    I've just flicked through the last few threads and there are three or four whose closest partners would go green with envy.

    Perhaps that would be a more interesting header ISAM than your suggested "How crap is Starmer?'

    Perhaps pair it with a piece on those whose response to Johnson doing anything is to take the opposite side. Which even leads some to start saying that Putin isn't such a bad chap after all, for example
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,891
    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
    Bare knuckle fighting better than an SA-80?
  • eek said:

    Fishing said:

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Yes, people generally post to complain, only rarely to say how great things are.

    I think that's linked up with the proven fact that people who follow the news closely are generally much less happy and have lower life-satisfaction than those that don't. The news is generally a succession of disasters, after all, and only rarely do they highlight things like new cures for cancer, etc.
    The kind of thing BBC should do, as a publicly funded broadcaster with a different mandate to corporate TV, is run a prominent good news only daily TV programme. It would make a real psychological difference to the country, as well as shine light on some of the amazing positive things ordinary people do for each other on a daily basis.
    Isn't that the purpose of the one show - albeit with a couple of sales pitches (interviews) and some other public information announcements.
    Not something I watch but guests today and yesterday are the likes of Joan Collins, Lenny Henry and Jay McGuiness which seems more like a typical celeb chat show?

    I would be thinking more about a great teacher, carer, nurse, doctor, charity campaigner (non celeb), sports coach, or even someone finding a way to recruit more HGV drivers!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,903

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    What is the issue with cards?

    Only impacts a sliver of the population but in most team sports being left handed at the elite level a definite advantage.
    Fanning out cards

    Yes, left handedness (And footedness) is a big advantage in most sports.
    What sports can you not play left-handed?

    EDITED as Google suggests there are a few.
    Polo, so the horses do not crash into each other. As an aside, it is to Ronnie O'Sullivan's great advantage that he can use a cue in either hand in situations where most players need to use a rest.
    Ronnie O’Sullivan is a total animal. I’ve seen him play a frame against himself, right-handed v left-handed, at an exhibition. Both versions scored decent breaks, he must have grown up playing ambidextrously.

    Here’s another exhibition, left-handed 147 attempt. He got the century.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=GkPB39FmnEE
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,708
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
    Bare knuckle fighting better than an SA-80?
    Slathered in body oil? I hear you.
  • Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    Do you know he was gay? Do the NT? A simple observation of "a private man who never married" would be both factually correct and state the case no further than the known facts.
    As Mr C says, does it matter? I agree with him, some people do try to make a mountain out of a molehill. If someone's dead, and, as the saying goes, the horses haven't been frightened, why make anything of it. He left no direct descendants, so we've got this lovely property.
    End of!
    I've heard people say that that Alexander the Great bloke was inclined to a bit of man love. Revealing that is an absolute DISGRACE!
    I read somewhere that the Spartans used to encourage homosexual affection among pairs of soldiers, on the fgrounds that pairs of lovers would fight savagely to defend each other.

    Applies of course to hand to hand combat. Don't think it works as well operating a drone from the mountains of Nebraska or Colorado.
    I've always wondered about the Hellenic attitude to homosexuality in the nature/nurture context. It suggests that pederasty (I use the word in its original, non judgmental sense) can be encouraged by social normalising which I gather is very much a no no in modern thinking on the subject. The Gore Vidal view (I think) that people exist on a varying scale between outright homosexuality and heterosexuality seems to be a fair hypothesis to me. On that basis external social pressure might very well have an effect.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,455
    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
    Listening to left handed booties moan about it. The biggest problem they had was zeroing the sights as they were usually left eye dominant too and they tried to fire it LH it deposited hot brass on to them.

    Mine did go out of the door of the Lynx into the Shatt al-Arab to be replaced by an CQBR M4 which was great. I wish I still had it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,940

    I have to say that I find the criticism of Johnson taking a holiday, as odd. Of course he should be able to take a holiday.

    There's so much to attack him for, being utterly useless is a good start but I think taking a holiday seems a pointless line of attack

    There is an argument that he reminds one of "Nero fiddled, while Rome burned", but hey everyone is entitled to some time off, so let's give him a free pass there. The grace and favour holiday(s) on the other hand smacks of corruption.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,891
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
    Bare knuckle fighting better than an SA-80?
    Slathered in body oil? I hear you.
    Is that good camouflage in the desert or does it make you a bigger target for the Taliban?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    “ situation at UK's biggest port 'improving' and Britons should shop for Christmas presents 'normally'” -
    "I'm confident that people will be able to get their toys for Christmas," simpers Oliver Dowden in that skin crawling accent.

    Lying, Shit stirring media slap down?

    Or

    The most brass neck gaslighting government we have ever had? …since Brown, Blair and Callaghan.
  • TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
    Try writing your destination onto a touch screen with your wrong hand – while looking at the road.
    Isn't it against the law to be using touch screen navigation while you're on the road though?

    You're supposed to use handsfree or pull over to enter any navigation commands.
    I've heard drivers are supposed to stop at red lights and obey speed limits. But in any case, it will still be easier left-handed when stationary. Then there is adjusting the temperature and radio station via 17 menu layers because pressing a button is too old-fashioned.
    Waze is voice activated. Aren't other navigation systems also?
    I don't have a built-in system, I use my phone docked onto the windscreen, which has a wireless charger built into the dock and its connected via Bluetooth. Works just fine, never seen a reason to upgrade to a built-in one but they seem to come as standard in more new cars nowadays so expect will get one eventually.

    I just say "OK Google" and then tell the phone what I want it to do (play music, change destination etc) and it works just fine.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,708
    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
    Listening to left handed booties moan about it. The biggest problem they had was zeroing the sights as they were usually left eye dominant too and they tried to fire it LH it deposited hot brass on to them.

    Mine did go out of the door of the Lynx into the Shatt al-Arab to be replaced by an CQBR M4 which was great. I wish I still had it.
    Very showbiz.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,891
    gealbhan said:

    “ situation at UK's biggest port 'improving' and Britons should shop for Christmas presents 'normally'” -
    "I'm confident that people will be able to get their toys for Christmas," simpers Oliver Dowden in that skin crawling accent.

    Lying, Shit stirring media slap down?

    Or

    The most brass neck gaslighting government we have ever had? …since Brown, Blair and Callaghan.

    It's necessarily improving because shipping companies have stopped adding to the backlog of containers for a few days. Once again, there's been a lack of investment in automation in some of our dockyards as owners decided to take profits. Now they're scrambling to put automation in place but it's an expensive and time consuming process which won't be completed until late next year. In the meantime it means more air freight.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,852

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    You think the NT doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuals too?

    There are plenty of loons on your side too - your post alone shows how tone-deaf you are to seeing this - and
    you should read my post on English Heritage for an example of how to do it.

    Unfortunately, the NT leadership have been too obstinate and ignorant for too long though, so have to go.
    To be honest I have visited loads of NT properties and I don't recall ever seeing anything about homosexuals. Perhaps there was but I didn't notice it, because gay people are just a normal part of the world I live in. This guy spent his entire statement frothing about them. I have no interest in seeing the leadership at the NT replaced by a motley crew of gay-bashers and climate change deniers.
    A really big problem with the culture wars is that partisan hyperventilating posts like this scoop up more that twice as many likes as the well-balanced English Heritage one I posted earlier.

    That tells us so much about why we're in the pickle we are, and why social media algorithms work the way they do.
    I liked the bits of your English Heritage post about the position of their leader, but not the partisan conclusion - I don't know whether the current leadership of the NT needs to go, or if they're close enough to the English Heritage position that I'd be content with them.

    So it was the partisan parts of your post that put me off. A hitherto silent half of a like from me regardless, and I did appreciate it.
    Fair enough, although I do wonder if that would still have been the case even if I'd eliminated the final paragraph.

    And it doesn't stop people liking OLB's very partisan post.
    I thought I was quite liberal with my likes, but I've just had a check and I can't find a post of yours that I've liked in the last week.

    This surprises me as when I'm just skimming a thread your avatar is one of the ones I look out for as you more often have something interesting to say.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Roger said:

    I bow to no one in my dislike of Johnson but I will say this for him. He inspires an affection which goes way beyond that which is normally afforded to politicians in the UK.

    It's the sort that had grown men crossing themselves at the feet of Eva Peron or bursting into the White House for the love of Donald Trump but virtually unknown in the more cynical cities of Northern Europe.

    I've just flicked through the last few threads and there are three or four whose closest partners would go green with envy.

    Perhaps that would be a more interesting header ISAM than your suggested "How crap is Starmer?'

    I think the header that needs to be written is ‘Everything You Know Is Wrong: Why achieving the worst vote shares in the party’s history in safe seats, trailing the government in the polls despite the pandemic, fuel shortages, & empty shelves, and being behind the PM on all pollsters leader ratings bar one is actually good news for Sir Keir & Labour’
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,254
    glw said:

    glw said:

    MaxPB said:

    I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

    Yes the pandemic has shown that most of the political class and media are barely numerate. It's a puzzle how anything gets done in this country. I can only assume that despite all the bloviating in parliament that at the end of the day most ministers simply do what their civil servants tell them to do.
    What is interesting is the savage dislike of numbers that creeps out among the political class.

    Reminds me of the stories of the Royal Navy in the 1920's - after WWI an anti-intellectualism spread. Junior officers who wrote scientifically or studied problems systematically were accused of "Blinding their superiors with science"....
    Indeed too many people have a weird view that "I'm rubbish at maths" is a joke. We live in a scientific and technologically driven world. Lacking normal mathematical skills, having a poor understanding of basic science, and struggling to utilise technology isn't funny, it's a serious educational failing that renders a person almost useless for a vast range of occupations. And increasingly it's not just work that these deficiencies have an impact, ordinary life requires these skills to a degree as well.
    It's a joke for public consumption - complete with a a sneer. When it gets out of the public eye...

    My journalist friend who got writing COVID stories dumped on her mentioned that editors would get actually rude if too much "brainy" stuff crept into her work. And she isn't working for a tabloid.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,254
    edited October 2021
    isam said:

    Roger said:

    I bow to no one in my dislike of Johnson but I will say this for him. He inspires an affection which goes way beyond that which is normally afforded to politicians in the UK.

    It's the sort that had grown men crossing themselves at the feet of Eva Peron or bursting into the White House for the love of Donald Trump but virtually unknown in the more cynical cities of Northern Europe.

    I've just flicked through the last few threads and there are three or four whose closest partners would go green with envy.

    Perhaps that would be a more interesting header ISAM than your suggested "How crap is Starmer?'

    I think the header that needs to be written is ‘Everything You Know Is Wrong: Why achieving the worst vote shares in the party’s history in safe seats, trailing the government in the polls despite the pandemic, fuel shortages, & empty shelves, and being behind the PM on all pollsters leader ratings bar one is actually good news for Sir Keir & Labour’
    There is nothing wrong with Starmer, that I can see.

    The problem is that there is nothing right, in a big way, either.

    I can see the advantage of that in a lawyer. But not in politician.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,790

    I have to say that I find the criticism of Johnson taking a holiday, as odd. Of course he should be able to take a holiday.

    There's so much to attack him for, being utterly useless is a good start but I think taking a holiday seems a pointless line of attack

    Are you Pat McFadden in disguise?

    https://labourlist.org/2021/10/labours-pat-mcfadden-i-dont-care-whether-the-pm-is-on-holiday-or-not/

    The Shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury told Sky News: “I don’t care whether the Prime Minister is on holiday or not. The truth is even if he was in the country, the lack of grip seems to be the same, so I really don’t care where he is. What I want is grip and we haven’t got grip at the moment, we’ve just got chaos… It seems just as chaotic when the Prime Minister is here.”
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655

    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Cookie said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    The NT went too far though.

    A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

    The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

    That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
    Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".
    I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

    Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

    I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
    Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
    What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
    "They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
    Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.
    If left handed people were routinely jailed or driven to suicide in the past then yes I think it would be very interesting to have that history uncovered at NT properties. There are two aspects to this - representation and history. On the representation side, yes of course being gay is normal, that's why we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. On the history side, being gay was not considered normal in the past, and gay people paid a heavy price for that, and that is worthy of note. The whole point of NT properties is to connect us to the past, not just the bits that aren't challenging for anyone.
    PB pedantry – left-handed children used to be forced to write right-handed, to which end they might be beaten or their dominant hand bound. And this was necessary in the liquid ink days because otherwise they'd have smeared ink all over the page. They were also denigrated in terms like sinister or cack-handed. Maybe we do need a left-handed history month couple of hours. :wink:
    I was going to post similar as an older left hander, but thought better of it as there is no comparison obviously between that and being gay in the 60s. It is amazing how most right handers don't know all the issues with being left-handed. Most of us end up using both hands as some tasks are just impossible in a right hand world and I am rather pleased by that.

    How many right handers think there is an issue with playing cards?
    Where left-handers do win is in modern cars with the interactive infotainment screen on the driver's left.
    Really? I once drove a manual left-hand drive car and changing gear with my right hand (i.e. my stronger hand) was just weird.
    Try writing your destination onto a touch screen with your wrong hand – while looking at the road.
    You cant
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,254
    edited October 2021
    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
    Listening to left handed booties moan about it. The biggest problem they had was zeroing the sights as they were usually left eye dominant too and they tried to fire it LH it deposited hot brass on to them.

    Mine did go out of the door of the Lynx into the Shatt al-Arab to be replaced by an CQBR M4 which was great. I wish I still had it.
    Very showbiz.
    It makes you wonder what was wrong with re-chambering the EM-2 for 5.56...

    I handled an original EM-2 at a museum, once - very nice piece of engineering, not a pile of rattling bits.

    EDIT: mind you I am comparing it with the cadet version of the SA-80. Which was very very.... er.... special...
  • gealbhan said:

    “ situation at UK's biggest port 'improving' and Britons should shop for Christmas presents 'normally'” -
    "I'm confident that people will be able to get their toys for Christmas," simpers Oliver Dowden in that skin crawling accent.

    Lying, Shit stirring media slap down?

    Or

    The most brass neck gaslighting government we have ever had? …since Brown, Blair and Callaghan.

    There is a real opportunity here

    Just have a quiet Christmas and give Amazon and the like gift vouchers with a note that due to problems with Christmas gifts arriving late, then post Christmas the price of these goods will drop hugely providing the best of both worlds

    A quiet Christmas then bargains galore for early 2022

    I know my dear Scots wife who has an eye for any bargain will seize the opportunity
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,583
    isam said:

    Roger said:

    I bow to no one in my dislike of Johnson but I will say this for him. He inspires an affection which goes way beyond that which is normally afforded to politicians in the UK.

    It's the sort that had grown men crossing themselves at the feet of Eva Peron or bursting into the White House for the love of Donald Trump but virtually unknown in the more cynical cities of Northern Europe.

    I've just flicked through the last few threads and there are three or four whose closest partners would go green with envy.

    Perhaps that would be a more interesting header ISAM than your suggested "How crap is Starmer?'

    I think the header that needs to be written is ‘Everything You Know Is Wrong: Why achieving the worst vote shares in the party’s history in safe seats, trailing the government in the polls despite the pandemic, fuel shortages, & empty shelves, and being behind the PM on all pollsters leader ratings bar one is actually good news for Sir Keir & Labour’
    You haven't been reading Max. The country is soaring! We've never had it so good. We've got Australia on board and the EU without us is just an empty shell soon to fall apart. What chance has Starmer got when everything here is so AMAZING!
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,790

    TOPPING said:

    PB types:

    People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
    People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
    People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

    *whatever it is

    People who loathe the government: post about the government
    People who loathe Trump: post about Trump

    People have a tendency to write about what they object to. Why is that odd?
    Just to contradict you, I think Lord Frost is continuing to do a great job.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,254
    MaxPB said:

    gealbhan said:

    “ situation at UK's biggest port 'improving' and Britons should shop for Christmas presents 'normally'” -
    "I'm confident that people will be able to get their toys for Christmas," simpers Oliver Dowden in that skin crawling accent.

    Lying, Shit stirring media slap down?

    Or

    The most brass neck gaslighting government we have ever had? …since Brown, Blair and Callaghan.

    It's necessarily improving because shipping companies have stopped adding to the backlog of containers for a few days. Once again, there's been a lack of investment in automation in some of our dockyards as owners decided to take profits. Now they're scrambling to put automation in place but it's an expensive and time consuming process which won't be completed until late next year. In the meantime it means more air freight.
    Container operations are one of the first things that can go nearly completely un-manned....

    Up to final steps of loading on lorries, the problem is very neatly defined.
  • tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    You think the NT doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuals too?

    There are plenty of loons on your side too - your post alone shows how tone-deaf you are to seeing this - and
    you should read my post on English Heritage for an example of how to do it.

    Unfortunately, the NT leadership have been too obstinate and ignorant for too long though, so have to go.
    To be honest I have visited loads of NT properties and I don't recall ever seeing anything about homosexuals. Perhaps there was but I didn't notice it, because gay people are just a normal part of the world I live in. This guy spent his entire statement frothing about them. I have no interest in seeing the leadership at the NT replaced by a motley crew of gay-bashers and climate change deniers.
    A really big problem with the culture wars is that partisan hyperventilating posts like this scoop up more that twice as many likes as the well-balanced English Heritage one I posted earlier.

    That tells us so much about why we're in the pickle we are, and why social media algorithms work the way they do.
    I liked the bits of your English Heritage post about the position of their leader, but not the partisan conclusion - I don't know whether the current leadership of the NT needs to go, or if they're close enough to the English Heritage position that I'd be content with them.

    So it was the partisan parts of your post that put me off. A hitherto silent half of a like from me regardless, and I did appreciate it.
    I was in this position too. CR's posts are always eloquent and contain much good sense, but often go ultra-partisan in the final paragraph making them hard to "like". Incidentally CR I'm not sure why you think I need to apologise to you so please accept a Boris-style "I'm sorry if you were offended."
    You said the Restore Trust person was a loon and deeply-obsessed and troubled by gay-people, and then you associated me with this by saying he also found diversity forms "deeply triggering".
    Ah OK, I didn't really mean anything by that, other than noting that both you and the guy whose views you support both seemed to object to being asked your sexual orientation on a form (with the option of not saying) which I think is a bit weird - to me it's like asking your postcode. I wasn't trying to imply that you were obsessed with gays like this guy obviously is, and I am sorry that my comment sounded like that.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,949
    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
    Listening to left handed booties moan about it. The biggest problem they had was zeroing the sights as they were usually left eye dominant too and they tried to fire it LH it deposited hot brass on to them.

    Mine did go out of the door of the Lynx into the Shatt al-Arab to be replaced by an CQBR M4 which was great. I wish I still had it.
    I shoot right handed cos I am right eye dominant. Doesn't seem such an issue when both hands are doing things anyway.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,852
    Does anyone know what the all-time weakest performance by a World Cup host country is?

    Following yesterday's 4-0 defeat at the hands of a struggling Ireland you would have to think Qatar will set a new record.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    "Who would be best PM for UK?"

    Johnson 42%
    Starmer 31%

    Johnson 45%
    Burnham 27%

    Johnson 47%
    Khan 20%

    Johnson 48%
    Rayner 18%

    Johnson 37%
    Sunak 29%

    Sunak 40%
    Starmer 32%

    Redfield & Wilton

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1448227495115907074?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    edited October 2021
    Piers Morgan and Cummings twitter spat
    @piersmorgan

    a) I don’t think you’re in any position to throw around the ‘vain tool’ slur…
    b) Good to see you finally admit you stopped me holding ministers to proper account for their failures that cost 1000s of lives. Gutless & pathetic, like your lies over Barnard Castle.

    @Dominic2306
    Replying to
    @piersmorgan
    Do us all a favour and spend your time shagging gossip columnists instead of TV news, at least you're an expert in that
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,949
    HYUFD said:

    Piers Morgan and Cummings twitter spat
    @piersmorgan

    a) I don’t think you’re in any position to throw around the ‘vain tool’ slur…
    b) Good to see you finally admit you stopped me holding ministers to proper account for their failures that cost 1000s of lives. Gutless & pathetic, like your lies over Barnard Castle.

    @Dominic2306
    Replying to
    @piersmorgan
    Do us all a favour and spend your time shagging gossip columnists instead of TV news, at least you're an expert in that

    Morgan wins that exchange.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,250

    The National Trust would do well to take a leaf out of the book of Anna Eavis, who's Curatorial Director of English Heritage.

    In the October magazine she writes a perfectly judged article on "dealing with difficult history" that spans both sides of the culture debate. She asserts that stories that weren't heard in the past should be included, and only because their professional interest as historians is to make it inclusive and explore it as broadly and deeply as possible. She reassures that she has intention of removing statues, taking down blue plaques or "cancelling" history in any form; she is only interested in protecting it for future generations. She says we can feel pride in our past achievements and, at the same time, be critical or questioning of certain aspects. She even says we can be awed by the political and cultural reach enjoyed by Britain at the peak of its imperial pomp but also recognise the conflict and pain causes by colonial regimes. She does the same on both commemorating Sir Arthur Harris's contributions to the war effort whilst also acknowledging the collateral damage caused by his campaign. She forms no judgement and says history is a process of discussion, reflection, debate and learning. She pushes no conclusions.

    It's a masterclass in how to do it, and I am drafting a letter to send her accordingly.

    The trouble is the top of the National Trust is inhabited by a clique of tone-deaf networked Guardianistas some of whom worked together at the British Museum previously (I know this from following their histories on LinkedIn and Twitter) who believe their members and the public need to be schooled in their "values". Anyone who resists is "fomenting a culture war".

    They created their own Chimera, still don't get it, and only exceptional empathy, listening skills and humility right from the top can now end it: the present management has to go.

    You should read this, if you haven't. A thoughtful article.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trevor-phillips-when-you-erase-a-nations-past-you-threaten-its-future-xx9rqzqh9
  • HYUFD said:

    Piers Morgan and Cummings twitter spat
    @piersmorgan

    a) I don’t think you’re in any position to throw around the ‘vain tool’ slur…
    b) Good to see you finally admit you stopped me holding ministers to proper account for their failures that cost 1000s of lives. Gutless & pathetic, like your lies over Barnard Castle.

    @Dominic2306
    Replying to
    @piersmorgan
    Do us all a favour and spend your time shagging gossip columnists instead of TV news, at least you're an expert in that

    That's a thing of beauty. I love it when two equally obnoxious people get into a ruck like this, it's very liberating having no dog in the fight.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,969

    I have to say that I find the criticism of Johnson taking a holiday, as odd. Of course he should be able to take a holiday.

    There's so much to attack him for, being utterly useless is a good start but I think taking a holiday seems a pointless line of attack

    If he's useless, he should go on holiday more.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,804

    tlg86 said:
    Nope, but I support it.

    They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
    Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.
    You think the NT doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuals too?

    There are plenty of loons on your side too - your post alone shows how tone-deaf you are to seeing this - and
    you should read my post on English Heritage for an example of how to do it.

    Unfortunately, the NT leadership have been too obstinate and ignorant for too long though, so have to go.
    To be honest I have visited loads of NT properties and I don't recall ever seeing anything about homosexuals. Perhaps there was but I didn't notice it, because gay people are just a normal part of the world I live in. This guy spent his entire statement frothing about them. I have no interest in seeing the leadership at the NT replaced by a motley crew of gay-bashers and climate change deniers.
    A really big problem with the culture wars is that partisan hyperventilating posts like this scoop up more that twice as many likes as the well-balanced English Heritage one I posted earlier.

    That tells us so much about why we're in the pickle we are, and why social media algorithms work the way they do.
    I liked the bits of your English Heritage post about the position of their leader, but not the partisan conclusion - I don't know whether the current leadership of the NT needs to go, or if they're close enough to the English Heritage position that I'd be content with them.

    So it was the partisan parts of your post that put me off. A hitherto silent half of a like from me regardless, and I did appreciate it.
    I was in this position too. CR's posts are always eloquent and contain much good sense, but often go ultra-partisan in the final paragraph making them hard to "like". Incidentally CR I'm not sure why you think I need to apologise to you so please accept a Boris-style "I'm sorry if you were offended."
    You said the Restore Trust person was a loon and deeply-obsessed and troubled by gay-people, and then you associated me with this by saying he also found diversity forms "deeply triggering".
    Ah OK, I didn't really mean anything by that, other than noting that both you and the guy whose views you support both seemed to object to being asked your sexual orientation on a form (with the option of not saying) which I think is a bit weird - to me it's like asking your postcode. I wasn't trying to imply that you were obsessed with gays like this guy obviously is, and I am sorry that my comment sounded like that.
    Thank you - apology accepted.

    I don't see why it's weird. Sexuality is a deeply private and personal matter, and I find it as odd as discussing what sexual partners or proclivities one might have. I wouldn't dream of doing so outside a very close group of trusted friends - or no-one at all.

    I hope in time this question is dropped in its entirety.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,196
    edited October 2021
    MaxPB said:

    My dad's PCR test came back positive but my day 2 test (and my wife's) just came back negative. Not sure whether to bother with another one or just leave it. Got no symptoms and neither has my wife.

    My dad is on the mend though, he's up and about again, cut the grass which he seemed very happy about. He's got 7 days left of isolating, my mum works for a school so does loads of lateral flow tests and has yet to get a positive so I guess my dad has got a non contagious infection or a very low viral load.

    Work colleague of mine who was last in last wednesday is positive, I'm the person that works closest to her (About 3 metres away) and I've had -ve lft and no symptons subsequently.
    It was a good job she did lfts or she'd have been in mistaking the symptons (backache and headache) from being pregnancy related. She is vaccinated so has mild symptons I think, but pregnancy does lower the immune system somewhat.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,804
    Cyclefree said:

    The National Trust would do well to take a leaf out of the book of Anna Eavis, who's Curatorial Director of English Heritage.

    In the October magazine she writes a perfectly judged article on "dealing with difficult history" that spans both sides of the culture debate. She asserts that stories that weren't heard in the past should be included, and only because their professional interest as historians is to make it inclusive and explore it as broadly and deeply as possible. She reassures that she has intention of removing statues, taking down blue plaques or "cancelling" history in any form; she is only interested in protecting it for future generations. She says we can feel pride in our past achievements and, at the same time, be critical or questioning of certain aspects. She even says we can be awed by the political and cultural reach enjoyed by Britain at the peak of its imperial pomp but also recognise the conflict and pain causes by colonial regimes. She does the same on both commemorating Sir Arthur Harris's contributions to the war effort whilst also acknowledging the collateral damage caused by his campaign. She forms no judgement and says history is a process of discussion, reflection, debate and learning. She pushes no conclusions.

    It's a masterclass in how to do it, and I am drafting a letter to send her accordingly.

    The trouble is the top of the National Trust is inhabited by a clique of tone-deaf networked Guardianistas some of whom worked together at the British Museum previously (I know this from following their histories on LinkedIn and Twitter) who believe their members and the public need to be schooled in their "values". Anyone who resists is "fomenting a culture war".

    They created their own Chimera, still don't get it, and only exceptional empathy, listening skills and humility right from the top can now end it: the present management has to go.

    You should read this, if you haven't. A thoughtful article.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trevor-phillips-when-you-erase-a-nations-past-you-threaten-its-future-xx9rqzqh9
    Thanks Cyclefree. Yes, I loved that article by Trevor last year.

    He's one of the good guys.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,127

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:


    What sports can you not play left-handed?


    Fighting with an SA-80.
    How would you know I thought you dumped yours on arrival in theatre.
    Listening to left handed booties moan about it. The biggest problem they had was zeroing the sights as they were usually left eye dominant too and they tried to fire it LH it deposited hot brass on to them.

    Mine did go out of the door of the Lynx into the Shatt al-Arab to be replaced by an CQBR M4 which was great. I wish I still had it.
    Very showbiz.
    It makes you wonder what was wrong with re-chambering the EM-2 for 5.56...

    I handled an original EM-2 at a museum, once - very nice piece of engineering, not a pile of rattling bits.

    EDIT: mind you I am comparing it with the cadet version of the SA-80. Which was very very.... er.... special...
    Christ the GPR for cadets was a nightmare as a left-hander- really caused problems when shooting as part of a timed event in competitions like Pringle Trophy. At least with the old lee enfields that they replaced for cadets you could hook your hand over the top to use the bolt……
This discussion has been closed.