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

12467

Comments

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264

    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    But he's anonymous here. I think he means in person.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,844
    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    Well that could just be his James Bond alter ego.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    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.

    The corona virus works in mysterious ways. An acquaintance caught Covid three times without once managing to infect his wife or lodger, and they were tested regularly by your actual NHS.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    Farooq said:

    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.
    If he wasn't so useless at appointing trusted, and competent, deputies to do the day-job.
  • pingping Posts: 1,415
    edited October 13
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    Well that could just be his James Bond alter ego.
    More Swiss Tony than James Bond, I think.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264

    Farooq said:

    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.
    If he wasn't so useless at appointing trusted, and competent, deputies to do the day-job.
    I concede the point
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,244

    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.
    Hopefully we are in a weird interlude between a future where no-one talks about this most of the time because it mostly makes no difference and the past where no-one wanted to talk about it because it made too much of a difference.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,783

    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.
    I think if Starmer is working towards a solid reasonably received plan for government, that will help some.

    But any Labour plan does depend somewhat on Boris blowing up. His chutzpah is such that he doesn't yet seem to have to face any consequences of his prime ministerial actions, he just skips on. Indeed a lot of the chaos is sown deliberately to obscure reality. He is behaving as PM in the same way as he does personally, and in dangerous times to boot. If he goes on for long enough he will eventually be hung by his own petard over something, but what and when are the $64000 questions here. It isn't happening tomorrow, and it probably isn't happening over the next 10 things that might sink less evasive characters.

    The one thing I will say in Labour's favour here is that, mid-term or not, I don't quite see who has turned away but will swing back Tory in big enough numbers between now and the election. I don't see where the Tories go to turn a 4% mid term lead back into an 8-9% election victory next time, even if that would be the normal expectation. And if Labour make further, even slight, inroads, then the election looks very tight to me in terms of the usual, keys to number 10, winning line.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    RobD said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    But he's anonymous here. I think he means in person.
    Bet he was dying to answer that 'Have you shagged loads of beautiful women?' q on the census form though.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    RobD said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    But he's anonymous here. I think he means in person.
    Bet he was dying to answer that 'Have you shagged loads of beautiful women?' q on the census form though.
    Secret for a hundred years, so no difference. ;)
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    Well that could just be his James Bond alter ego.
    More Swiss Tony than James Bond, I think.
    Very wrong of you to post that. It's Swiss Toni.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460

    RobD said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    But he's anonymous here. I think he means in person.
    Bet he was dying to answer that 'Have you shagged loads of beautiful women?' q on the census form though.
    I always dread that question.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    We keep getting from whence we acquired the infection but, on looking back we feel we acquired symptoms a couple of days apart. We both had negative LFT's last Wednesday afternoon, but Mrs C felt rough late the next day, while I didn't until Saturday.
    Strange.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,770

    RobD said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    But he's anonymous here. I think he means in person.
    Bet he was dying to answer that 'Have you shagged loads of beautiful women?' q on the census form though.
    I always dread that question.
    I have never had sex with a beautiful woman.

    I once made out with a County Show level rare breed she-goat, though.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    Well that could just be his James Bond alter ego.
    More Swiss Tony than James Bond, I think.
    Very wrong of you to post that. It's Swiss Toni.
    I stand corrected. Although isn't mis-spelling someone's name a lot like making love to a beautiful woman?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    I think we in the UK are missing another chance.
    We have:
    a) A nasty exponential-looking rise in cases.
    b) Our main ways to avoid NPIs: a booster programme for the vulnerable & 1st doses for teens, being outpaced by glaciers.
    c) Enough doses to complete both programmes right now.


    https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1448223173259022339?s=20

    And when he writes "UK", Scotland is doing notably better than England on teens. Parliament in recess - no one to hold govt. to account?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    But he's anonymous here. I think he means in person.
    Bet he was dying to answer that 'Have you shagged loads of beautiful women?' q on the census form though.
    I always dread that question.
    I have never had sex with a beautiful woman.

    I once made out with a County Show level rare breed she-goat, though.
    Over-sharing.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Cyclefree said:

    On the NT issue, my main problem with the current leadership is not their attitude to the sexuality of dead people (which is not frankly that interesting to me - it's what they have done which brings me to their properties not who they may have slept with). But rather their apparent abandonment of the skills and knowledge needed to preserve these properties, the sacking of so many skilled artisans and curators. It seems philistine and self-defeating. A sort of cultural vandalism.

    We should be encouraging and developing such skills not turning away from them. Very poor by the NT.

    Yes, that's true - they are increasingly poorly administered, and dumbed-down in the belief it makes them more accessible.

    NT to English Heritage is as Countryfile is to Clarkson's Farm.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219
    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?

    .
    Pocket billiards.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460

    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited October 13

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a '******er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    Btw, why is Charles so worked up over a cousin who died in 1969?

    When does the statue of limitations end?
    Are we allowed to talk about Edward II yet?

    Apparently the NT made a “song and dance” about his homosexuality, but that actually sounds pretty good.

    We all love a gay ol’ tune.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    Thought that might amuse you, the reference I mean. Tha abuse remains strictly hypothetical.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    I have been applying for schools in New York recently, for my 6 yo daughter.

    I can now confirm I am not Latinx, and that my daughter’s 2 yo brother “identifies as” male.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    edited October 13
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a '******er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    I'm quite a fan of the fine, old Scottish tradition of flyting but it a) needs a worthy opponent and b) a sharp and proportionate wit. While not always handy with the foil I hope at least to manage the sabre; some folk can barely handle a bludgeon.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Walker, frankly, Edward II's possible overfondness for Piers Gaveston might have mattered rather less had he not been shit at his job.

    Having favourites, including the Despensers, being feeble in war and governing divisively all mattered far more.

    There's a danger that focusing on the gay aspect (and the false but oft-repeated claim of his execution by poker to the posterior) rather undermines more important historical matters whilst also reducing the man from a complex person, with many a flaw, to simply a diversity tickbox.

    In the same way International Women's Day sometimes has people praising Empress Irene of Byzantium despite the fact she usurped her son and had him so brutally mutilated he died of his wounds...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    edited October 13

    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    I have been applying for schools in New York recently, for my 6 yo daughter.

    I can now confirm I am not Latinx, and that my daughter’s 2 yo brother “identifies as” male.
    What on earth is Latinx?

    Edit. Take it back; looked it up. Life being made considerably more complicated than it need to be.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Walker, nobody's Latinx, unless described by a woke person.

    :p

    You're not a Latino either.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    Invective that is not abusive is always the best. One of my favourites was Michael Beloff remarking of George Carman, in the Gilian Taylforth case (after Carman had commented on her "depraved sexual appetites").

    "To hear my learned friend condemn her depraved sexual appetites is similar to receiving a lecture in ethics from the devil."
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740

    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    If you want to keep it secret, don't tell your doctor. The Information Commissioner is worried the quacks will tell the rozzers.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/data-driven-innovation-why-confidentiality-and-transparency-must-underpin-the-nations-bright-vision-for-the-future-of-health-and-care
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447
    IshmaelZ 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.
    I shoot right handed cos I am right eye dominant. Doesn't seem such an issue when both hands are doing things anyway.
    I eat my main course right handed, but drink my soup or eat my pudding left handed. I guess for the same reason.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,725
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Reading through yesterday’s threads, good to see a mostly apolitical response with regard to the select committee report into the pandemic handling.

    A few of the usual partisan jibes, and plenty of MSM trying to politisise it, but these enquiries really do need to be about understanding the processes that led to decisions, rather than trying to hold individuals accountable for anything other than egregious breaches of procedure.

    Every country needs to learn their own lessons of the pandemic, in the same way as we learn from transport accident reports. Look globally at what worked (vaccines!) and what didn’t (PPE production and logistics, scale up of testing!), and invest now in planning for the next such event.

    To be completely honest, I would rather we focused on sorting out care homes or logistics right now, than spend a lot of senior government resource learning lessons from a global pandemic. This kind of event happens on average once a century or so, so any lessons learnt are likely to be long forgotten by the time it happens, and each event is distinctive so there is a danger of fighting the previous pandemic rather than the new one anyway.
    That’s true, certainly the majority of the resources of government are best deployed looking at today’s crisis, rather than yesterday’s.

    It is important to analyse how we could have done better in the pandemic though, it’s clear with hindsight that a lot of assumptions, about human behaviour rather than the virus itself, turned out to be incorrect. The next national emergency will probably not be another pandemic, but there will be plans we could update significantly with what we’ve learned in the past 20 months. Let’s not forget that an awful lot of people died, many lives were turned upside-down, and something like £600bn of public money has been spent. A formal public enquiry is definitely required, with a wide remit to look at how things happened and what might have been done differently.
    And even if pandemics only happen about once a century (in the past: there are lots of reasons to assume they will be more frequent in the future), and major crises perhaps once a decade, and each crisis is sui generis, none of that precludes many lessons for how we do disease surveillance and response, provide healthcare, develop and deliver vaccines, response to emergencies etc... in the more day to day and mundane settings. Which organizational structures for addressing the novel problem worked best; what decision-making processes; what worked in public health communications and what did not. And so on and so on. Tons useful to learn.

    Most of the learning would not involve 'senior government resources' and should more than pay for itself in the lessons learned.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219

    Mr. Walker, frankly, Edward II's possible overfondness for Piers Gaveston might have mattered rather less had he not been shit at his job.

    Having favourites, including the Despensers, being feeble in war and governing divisively all mattered far more.

    There's a danger that focusing on the gay aspect (and the false but oft-repeated claim of his execution by poker to the posterior) rather undermines more important historical matters whilst also reducing the man from a complex person, with many a flaw, to simply a diversity tickbox.

    In the same way International Women's Day sometimes has people praising Empress Irene of Byzantium despite the fact she usurped her son and had him so brutally mutilated he died of his wounds...

    So much of the historiography surrounding Edward II and Isabella is simply appalling (as well as giving rise to any number of trashy novels). People who know little about the subject reduce it to Edward, the Gay Martyr, v Isabella The Feminist Heroine.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    I have been applying for schools in New York recently, for my 6 yo daughter.

    I can now confirm I am not Latinx, and that my daughter’s 2 yo brother “identifies as” male.
    What on earth is Latinx?
    It’s a “non-binary” way of dealing with gendered pronouns in Spanish, in the USA. People from Latin countries (they mean Mexicans and South Americans) are not Latino nor Latina, they are collectively Latinx.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914


    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    I learnt everything I know at my mother's knee.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    When I visit a NT house (the last one being the astonishing Chastleton House in Oxfordshire), I love to hear any tawdry details about the previous inhabitants.

    It’s possible to do high brow and “low brow” simultaneously. The NT’s main issue is dumbing down, I think.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,783

    I think we in the UK are missing another chance.
    We have:
    a) A nasty exponential-looking rise in cases.
    b) Our main ways to avoid NPIs: a booster programme for the vulnerable & 1st doses for teens, being outpaced by glaciers.
    c) Enough doses to complete both programmes right now.


    https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1448223173259022339?s=20

    And when he writes "UK", Scotland is doing notably better than England on teens. Parliament in recess - no one to hold govt. to account?

    I think we are looking at some interventions now, though in the near term I'm hopeful the good weather last week will mean a small pause in the current increases.

    - I'd call a two week half term school holiday now: all schools to close England wide from 25/10-7/11. The reset in under 16 case rates should be rapid enough that this makes a big difference in the run up to Christmas. It is very late in the day to make this decision, I'd been advocating for this since August as a planned precautionary measure, but it looks needed.

    On the practicalities. schools would be open for already fixed vaccination dates and out of school and nurseries could operate as normal.

    - Bring back in the WFH where possible instruction. Make clear that offices can stay open, already organised mentoring, meetings etc are free to go ahead, and 'where possible' is at discretion.

    - Re-emphasise the importance of testing and minimising interaction as much as possible if you are a vaccinated contact, even whilst not re-mandating anything for that.

    These are mild NPIs but should make a difference and cam be reviewed as necessary.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219
    Sandpit 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.
    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    I have been applying for schools in New York recently, for my 6 yo daughter.

    I can now confirm I am not Latinx, and that my daughter’s 2 yo brother “identifies as” male.
    What on earth is Latinx?
    It’s a “non-binary” way of dealing with gendered pronouns in Spanish, in the USA. People from Latin countries (they mean Mexicans and South Americans) are not Latino nor Latina, they are collectively Latinx.
    So far as I can tell, people from that ethnic background mostly detest the term.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    Calling me an incel was a bit much, though?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    Nearly afternoon all.

    What is this Gone with the Wind meme? Has Mayor Sadiq blown himself out?

    Enjoyable morning so far.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    Calling me an incel was a bit much, though?
    That was after.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    Yes, that's nonsense though - it's emailed to HR by you, in my case two individuals or filled out in a survey attributable to you. They merely *promise* to treat it confidentially, and I know often don't.

    It's not exactly a secret ballot.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    Sean_F said:

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    Invective that is not abusive is always the best. One of my favourites was Michael Beloff remarking of George Carman, in the Gilian Taylforth case (after Carman had commented on her "depraved sexual appetites").

    "To hear my learned friend condemn her depraved sexual appetites is similar to receiving a lecture in ethics from the devil."
    Watching "who do you think you are" with Josh Widdicombe last night I noted that they carefully tip-toed around one of his ancestors, Lord Richard Rich, of whom Wikipedia says "Since the mid-16th century Rich has had a reputation for immorality, financial dishonesty, double-dealing, perjury and treachery rarely matched in English history. The historian Hugh Trevor-Roper called Rich a man "of whom nobody has ever spoken a good word".'"
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited October 13
    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit 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.
    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    I have been applying for schools in New York recently, for my 6 yo daughter.

    I can now confirm I am not Latinx, and that my daughter’s 2 yo brother “identifies as” male.
    What on earth is Latinx?
    It’s a “non-binary” way of dealing with gendered pronouns in Spanish, in the USA. People from Latin countries (they mean Mexicans and South Americans) are not Latino nor Latina, they are collectively Latinx.
    So far as I can tell, people from that ethnic background mostly detest the term.
    TBH that sounds like (yet) another imposed-by-activists-from-outside category to keep said activists in control of the agenda by moving the linguistic goalposts randomly again.

    Perhaps one to ignore?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a '******er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Funnily enough, MalcolmG doesn't bother me - although he's undoubtedly very rude - because I know it's reflexive and undiscriminating to politics he doesn't like so I don't take it personally.

    I think it's where it becomes personal that I have a problem with it (and, yes, I'm aware I'm not perfect on this score either, which is my bad).
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    As I get ready for NY, I am aware I will be entering the true citadel of wokerati.

    My friends are telling me I’m going to have to straighten up my act in a world of “affinity groups” etc.

    Should be fun.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit 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.
    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    I have been applying for schools in New York recently, for my 6 yo daughter.

    I can now confirm I am not Latinx, and that my daughter’s 2 yo brother “identifies as” male.
    What on earth is Latinx?
    It’s a “non-binary” way of dealing with gendered pronouns in Spanish, in the USA. People from Latin countries (they mean Mexicans and South Americans) are not Latino nor Latina, they are collectively Latinx.
    So far as I can tell, people from that ethnic background mostly detest the term.
    Indeed. As with most recent ‘innovations’ in language, it’s something used primarily by the guilty-feeling white upper-class ‘liberals’.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=T0q2ZR4nBuE
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    When I visit a NT house (the last one being the astonishing Chastleton House in Oxfordshire), I love to hear any tawdry details about the previous inhabitants.

    It’s possible to do high brow and “low brow” simultaneously. The NT’s main issue is dumbing down, I think.

    Visited Cragside, near Alnwick, recently. There's a statue of an African woman in chains on the main staircase with what I thought was a rather desperate notice explaining why it was there and how it was meant to represent liberation from slavery.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    DuraAce is usually funny, but I find what he says at times deeply troubling.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    Calling me an incel was a bit much, though?
    That was after.
    I don't want to rake over it all over again but triggering young women, young fogey and Alan Partridge all featured before and I got increasingly irritated by it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On the NT issue, my main problem with the current leadership is not their attitude to the sexuality of dead people (which is not frankly that interesting to me - it's what they have done which brings me to their properties not who they may have slept with). But rather their apparent abandonment of the skills and knowledge needed to preserve these properties, the sacking of so many skilled artisans and curators. It seems philistine and self-defeating. A sort of cultural vandalism.

    We should be encouraging and developing such skills not turning away from them. Very poor by the NT.

    Yes, that's true - they are increasingly poorly administered, and dumbed-down in the belief it makes them more accessible.

    NT to English Heritage is as Countryfile is to Clarkson's Farm.
    The Historic Houses Association has quite a few interesting houses in the Lake District so I find my membership of them more use than the NT's at the moment. There is also some grumbling about how the NT is caring for the land it owns here.

    I like being told about all aspects of history. What I object to is not being told the facts but what I am supposed to think about those facts. I can make up my own mind.

    There is a tendency to one "received opinion" and to that being the only acceptable opinion. It is not particularly a left or right thing. It's seen on both sides of the political divide. It's more an assumption that there can only be one or a narrow range of ways looking at an issue and an unwillingness to accept that there may be a different way of seeing things even if it is a view you disagree with or think wrong.

    Why people think differently - even if they're being utterly wrong-headed - is often very interesting indeed and, frankly, essential if one is to have any chance of countering their arguments. And there may also be a small element of truth or value in their arguments as well, of course.
    Spot on.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit 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.
    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.
    AIUI data collected in this way is meant to be stored in such a way that it preserves anonymity. I would fill-in the form happily anyway - Google, FB etc already know more about us than our partners do, and I trust them a hell of a lot less than the National Trust.
    I have been applying for schools in New York recently, for my 6 yo daughter.

    I can now confirm I am not Latinx, and that my daughter’s 2 yo brother “identifies as” male.
    What on earth is Latinx?
    It’s a “non-binary” way of dealing with gendered pronouns in Spanish, in the USA. People from Latin countries (they mean Mexicans and South Americans) are not Latino nor Latina, they are collectively Latinx.
    So far as I can tell, people from that ethnic background mostly detest the term.
    I think the radical Left are going to be shocked in the years to come at how minorities "betray" them politically.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    edited October 13

    When I visit a NT house (the last one being the astonishing Chastleton House in Oxfordshire), I love to hear any tawdry details about the previous inhabitants.

    It’s possible to do high brow and “low brow” simultaneously. The NT’s main issue is dumbing down, I think.

    Visited Cragside, near Alnwick, recently. There's a statue of an African woman in chains on the main staircase with what I thought was a rather desperate notice explaining why it was there and how it was meant to represent liberation from slavery.
    The capital of anti-woke was the Royal Museum of Central Africa, in the outskirts of Brussels.

    It was manacled slave statues a-go-go, weird and creepy ethnographic displays, and hardly a peep about Leopold’s genocidal regime.

    I was “lucky” enough to go before they finally remodelled it a few years ago. Very interesting in a mad way.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    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.
    I thought you were asking about his holidays?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    When I visit a NT house (the last one being the astonishing Chastleton House in Oxfordshire), I love to hear any tawdry details about the previous inhabitants.

    It’s possible to do high brow and “low brow” simultaneously. The NT’s main issue is dumbing down, I think.

    Visited Cragside, near Alnwick, recently. There's a statue of an African woman in chains on the main staircase with what I thought was a rather desperate notice explaining why it was there and how it was meant to represent liberation from slavery.
    To stop people complaining, that it was instead celebrating black women in chains?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219
    edited October 13

    When I visit a NT house (the last one being the astonishing Chastleton House in Oxfordshire), I love to hear any tawdry details about the previous inhabitants.

    It’s possible to do high brow and “low brow” simultaneously. The NT’s main issue is dumbing down, I think.

    Visited Cragside, near Alnwick, recently. There's a statue of an African woman in chains on the main staircase with what I thought was a rather desperate notice explaining why it was there and how it was meant to represent liberation from slavery.
    The capital of anti-woke was the Royal Museum of Central Africa, in the outskirts of Brussels.

    It was manacled slave statues a-go-go, weird and creepy ethnographic displays, and hardly a peep about Leopold’s genocidal regime.

    I was “lucky” enough to go before they finally remodelled it a few years ago. Very interesting in a mad way.
    The Museum of the Occupation in Riga had an interesting take on WWII, when I was last there in 2002. I wonder if that has now changed.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,818

    When I visit a NT house (the last one being the astonishing Chastleton House in Oxfordshire), I love to hear any tawdry details about the previous inhabitants.

    It’s possible to do high brow and “low brow” simultaneously. The NT’s main issue is dumbing down, I think.

    Visited Cragside, near Alnwick, recently. There's a statue of an African woman in chains on the main staircase with what I thought was a rather desperate notice explaining why it was there and how it was meant to represent liberation from slavery.
    I would have to ask why Cragside was built by William / Baron Armstrong. Given that he was born in 1810 and lived in Newcastle, Bishop Auckland and London (while a student) I can't see how that statue has any relevance to the place.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    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.
    I'm not sure what secretive means in this context. We know when he is on holiday, the details of them are irrelevant except for, as you note, the issue of if someone else is paying etc.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219

    Sean_F said:

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    Invective that is not abusive is always the best. One of my favourites was Michael Beloff remarking of George Carman, in the Gilian Taylforth case (after Carman had commented on her "depraved sexual appetites").

    "To hear my learned friend condemn her depraved sexual appetites is similar to receiving a lecture in ethics from the devil."
    Watching "who do you think you are" with Josh Widdicombe last night I noted that they carefully tip-toed around one of his ancestors, Lord Richard Rich, of whom Wikipedia says "Since the mid-16th century Rich has had a reputation for immorality, financial dishonesty, double-dealing, perjury and treachery rarely matched in English history. The historian Hugh Trevor-Roper called Rich a man "of whom nobody has ever spoken a good word".'"
    That sounds like a fair judgement on the man. I knew one of his descendants at university, who described him as "a complete shit."
  • Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    One of the interesting challenges coming up.

    Ideally, the government want to beliefs to be prevalent;
    1 Brexit Is Done (because that is a genuine substantial achievement, even if one thinks it's a foolish one, and most people would love to change the subject.)
    2 Brexit Is In Peril, and Only Boris Can Save Brexit (because otherwise why would Brexit Coalition continue to Back Boris?)

    Holding those two together isn't that difficult politically. The harder bit is the governmental aspect- keeping a situation where it's almost a crisis but not quite going is awfully hard work.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    Sean_F said:

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    Invective that is not abusive is always the best. One of my favourites was Michael Beloff remarking of George Carman, in the Gilian Taylforth case (after Carman had commented on her "depraved sexual appetites").

    "To hear my learned friend condemn her depraved sexual appetites is similar to receiving a lecture in ethics from the devil."
    Watching "who do you think you are" with Josh Widdicombe last night I noted that they carefully tip-toed around one of his ancestors, Lord Richard Rich, of whom Wikipedia says "Since the mid-16th century Rich has had a reputation for immorality, financial dishonesty, double-dealing, perjury and treachery rarely matched in English history. The historian Hugh Trevor-Roper called Rich a man "of whom nobody has ever spoken a good word".'"
    I'd love to discover one of my ancestors that far back was a right bastard. It's fun and interesting as it is so far back I'd not feel any concern like discovering dear old granddad was a nazi or something.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    kle4 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.
    I'm not sure what secretive means in this context. We know when he is on holiday, the details of them are irrelevant except for, as you note, the issue of if someone else is paying etc.
    Blair also seemed to have a lot of holidays on someone else’s dime.

    It didn’t seem to suggest good and wholesome things.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    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".
    He was a strong Catholic and most likely a celibate gay. That was the way he chose to live his life. The NT decided they knew better. The Guardian wrote an article about the case which was not entirely favourable to the NT.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/12/is-outing-people-remit-of-national-trust
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,858

    As I get ready for NY, I am aware I will be entering the true citadel of wokerati.

    My friends are telling me I’m going to have to straighten up my act in a world of “affinity groups” etc.

    Should be fun.

    North Yorkshire? Nay lad, t'aint nowt woke 'round ere.

    As t'locals say: "T'ain't woke? Don't fix it."
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    eek said:

    When I visit a NT house (the last one being the astonishing Chastleton House in Oxfordshire), I love to hear any tawdry details about the previous inhabitants.

    It’s possible to do high brow and “low brow” simultaneously. The NT’s main issue is dumbing down, I think.

    Visited Cragside, near Alnwick, recently. There's a statue of an African woman in chains on the main staircase with what I thought was a rather desperate notice explaining why it was there and how it was meant to represent liberation from slavery.
    I would have to ask why Cragside was built by William / Baron Armstrong. Given that he was born in 1810 and lived in Newcastle, Bishop Auckland and London (while a student) I can't see how that statue has any relevance to the place.
    Statue seems to be there cos Armstrong bought it for his collection, presumably to ornament Cragside: so it's part of the Armstrongian totality of Cragside. Seems to have been given to the nation in lieu of death duties or IHT, and then passed to the NT by HMG.

    http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1228372
  • Simon_PeachSimon_Peach Posts: 148
    kle4 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.
    I'm not sure what secretive means in this context. We know when he is on holiday, the details of them are irrelevant except for, as you note, the issue of if someone else is paying etc.
    I’m delighted that the Prime Minister is on holiday in Spain as it meant that most restrictions on overseas travel had to be lifted last week.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    Selebian said:

    As I get ready for NY, I am aware I will be entering the true citadel of wokerati.

    My friends are telling me I’m going to have to straighten up my act in a world of “affinity groups” etc.

    Should be fun.

    North Yorkshire? Nay lad, t'aint nowt woke 'round ere.

    As t'locals say: "T'ain't woke? Don't fix it."
    The nearest one gets to woke is the Goths at Whitby.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    Invective that is not abusive is always the best. One of my favourites was Michael Beloff remarking of George Carman, in the Gilian Taylforth case (after Carman had commented on her "depraved sexual appetites").

    "To hear my learned friend condemn her depraved sexual appetites is similar to receiving a lecture in ethics from the devil."
    Watching "who do you think you are" with Josh Widdicombe last night I noted that they carefully tip-toed around one of his ancestors, Lord Richard Rich, of whom Wikipedia says "Since the mid-16th century Rich has had a reputation for immorality, financial dishonesty, double-dealing, perjury and treachery rarely matched in English history. The historian Hugh Trevor-Roper called Rich a man "of whom nobody has ever spoken a good word".'"
    That sounds like a fair judgement on the man. I knew one of his descendants at university, who described him as "a complete shit."
    A Cambridge-educated lawyer? Surely not. :wink:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited October 13

    Mr. Walker, frankly, Edward II's possible overfondness for Piers Gaveston might have mattered rather less had he not been shit at his job.

    Having favourites, including the Despensers, being feeble in war and governing divisively all mattered far more.

    There's a danger that focusing on the gay aspect (and the false but oft-repeated claim of his execution by poker to the posterior) rather undermines more important historical matters whilst also reducing the man from a complex person, with many a flaw, to simply a diversity tickbox.

    In the same way International Women's Day sometimes has people praising Empress Irene of Byzantium despite the fact she usurped her son and had him so brutally mutilated he died of his wounds...

    Yes, it's not as though there have not been other kings probably engaging in the same behaviour after all.

    I remember there was a Da Vinci series recently, which I didn't watch, but the write up made me chuckle a bit as it talked about how some historians think he was gay, but that it's debated (I have no idea how much, I feel like I already knew he probably was for some reason), followed by a quote from the actor talking about how central (or vital etc) to Da Vinci that sexuality was, even though the previous para had it as a 'may'.

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    There's certainly a place for invective, particularly in political debate. I wouldn't consider myself well suited to such, but much valuable commentary can be lost if exaggeration and invective were lost entirely.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    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.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,725
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On the NT issue, my main problem with the current leadership is not their attitude to the sexuality of dead people (which is not frankly that interesting to me - it's what they have done which brings me to their properties not who they may have slept with). But rather their apparent abandonment of the skills and knowledge needed to preserve these properties, the sacking of so many skilled artisans and curators. It seems philistine and self-defeating. A sort of cultural vandalism.

    We should be encouraging and developing such skills not turning away from them. Very poor by the NT.

    Yes, that's true - they are increasingly poorly administered, and dumbed-down in the belief it makes them more accessible.

    NT to English Heritage is as Countryfile is to Clarkson's Farm.
    The Historic Houses Association has quite a few interesting houses in the Lake District so I find my membership of them more use than the NT's at the moment. There is also some grumbling about how the NT is caring for the land it owns here.

    I like being told about all aspects of history. What I object to is not being told the facts but what I am supposed to think about those facts. I can make up my own mind.

    There is a tendency to one "received opinion" and to that being the only acceptable opinion. It is not particularly a left or right thing. It's seen on both sides of the political divide. It's more an assumption that there can only be one or a narrow range of ways looking at an issue and an unwillingness to accept that there may be a different way of seeing things even if it is a view you disagree with or think wrong.

    Why people think differently - even if they're being utterly wrong-headed - is often very interesting indeed and, frankly, essential if one is to have any chance of countering their arguments. And there may also be a small element of truth or value in their arguments as well, of course.
    Indeed. You need no clearer example of this than to sit in a history class taught in another country.

    AQ Khan died 3 days ago. A very American Pakistani doctor (she is married to an American, is a US citizen, and has lived in the US for about 50 years) I know had no idea he was viewed as a terrorist by the US and, under US pressure, confined to 'house arrest' by Pakistan. To Pakistanis, he was a national hero. Not even a complicated one, just a hero.

    And this American was puzzled when I - who started out my career in arms control and disarmament - asked her the first time I walked into the AQ Khan auditorium at the Pakistan Academy of Sciences to take a picture of me at the doorway with his nameplate above me. She was puzzled because she simply missed the irony.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    Invective that is not abusive is always the best. One of my favourites was Michael Beloff remarking of George Carman, in the Gilian Taylforth case (after Carman had commented on her "depraved sexual appetites").

    "To hear my learned friend condemn her depraved sexual appetites is similar to receiving a lecture in ethics from the devil."
    Watching "who do you think you are" with Josh Widdicombe last night I noted that they carefully tip-toed around one of his ancestors, Lord Richard Rich, of whom Wikipedia says "Since the mid-16th century Rich has had a reputation for immorality, financial dishonesty, double-dealing, perjury and treachery rarely matched in English history. The historian Hugh Trevor-Roper called Rich a man "of whom nobody has ever spoken a good word".'"
    I'd love to discover one of my ancestors that far back was a right bastard. It's fun and interesting as it is so far back I'd not feel any concern like discovering dear old granddad was a nazi or something.
    It would be a bit offputting to discover that one's real grandfather was Martin Bormann or Heinrich Himmler.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On the NT issue, my main problem with the current leadership is not their attitude to the sexuality of dead people (which is not frankly that interesting to me - it's what they have done which brings me to their properties not who they may have slept with). But rather their apparent abandonment of the skills and knowledge needed to preserve these properties, the sacking of so many skilled artisans and curators. It seems philistine and self-defeating. A sort of cultural vandalism.

    We should be encouraging and developing such skills not turning away from them. Very poor by the NT.

    Yes, that's true - they are increasingly poorly administered, and dumbed-down in the belief it makes them more accessible.

    NT to English Heritage is as Countryfile is to Clarkson's Farm.
    The Historic Houses Association has quite a few interesting houses in the Lake District so I find my membership of them more use than the NT's at the moment. There is also some grumbling about how the NT is caring for the land it owns here.

    I like being told about all aspects of history. What I object to is not being told the facts but what I am supposed to think about those facts. I can make up my own mind.

    There is a tendency to one "received opinion" and to that being the only acceptable opinion. It is not particularly a left or right thing. It's seen on both sides of the political divide. It's more an assumption that there can only be one or a narrow range of ways looking at an issue and an unwillingness to accept that there may be a different way of seeing things even if it is a view you disagree with or think wrong.

    Why people think differently - even if they're being utterly wrong-headed - is often very interesting indeed and, frankly, essential if one is to have any chance of countering their arguments. And there may also be a small element of truth or value in their arguments as well, of course.
    I agree with Cyclefree, as I nearly always do. But the great way in which Cyclefree's approach is subverted is to deny that there are such things as uninterpreted facts, so that in presenting what I would call facts and values together all one is doing is telling the truth. The entire edifice of the Guardian, and too much of the BBC depends on this post modern approach.

    As if David Hume has lived in vain.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    Charles 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.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    Dead people lose their right to privacy.

    Especially if they are “famous” (which your cousin is to the extent that he left his house to the NT, and has a wiki page).

    The most legitimate grievance you seem to have is mischaracterisation, I think.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Carnyx said:

    Farooq 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.
    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.
    Lol. I've had more sex with more beautiful women than you could ever dream to hope for. You're just a tedious troll.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6

    I bet more young women fancy me than you. So fuck off, old boy.
    in The big speech reaction – politicalbetting.com Comment by Casino_Royale October 6
    I post anonymously on here.

    Yes, those comments weren't my finest hour - and I shouldn't have allowed myself to be provoked by @Gardenwalker - but it's interesting how it's only my responses that attract opprobrium but the insults, misrepresentations and provocations he directed at me didn't get a drip of censure from you or anyone else.

    It's almost like you're also a tedious troll. I'll simply add you to my "ignore" list.
    The weird thing is that I was actually agreeing with you on a particular point and then you came out with that.

    But, I enjoy invective and wish there were slightly more on PB to be honest.

    As well as intellectual honesty over why Britain has had low wage growth / poor productivity.
    So if I called you a 'Footrot Flats s****-s*****er' you'd regard it as improving the tone of the political discussion? Not that I would, either in fact or intent. It's just the wish for more invective that startles.
    Well it has to be funny invective.
    Dura Ace does it marvellously.

    Top marks for the obscure Footrot Flats reference though!
    Invective that is not abusive is always the best. One of my favourites was Michael Beloff remarking of George Carman, in the Gilian Taylforth case (after Carman had commented on her "depraved sexual appetites").

    "To hear my learned friend condemn her depraved sexual appetites is similar to receiving a lecture in ethics from the devil."
    Watching "who do you think you are" with Josh Widdicombe last night I noted that they carefully tip-toed around one of his ancestors, Lord Richard Rich, of whom Wikipedia says "Since the mid-16th century Rich has had a reputation for immorality, financial dishonesty, double-dealing, perjury and treachery rarely matched in English history. The historian Hugh Trevor-Roper called Rich a man "of whom nobody has ever spoken a good word".'"
    I'd love to discover one of my ancestors that far back was a right bastard. It's fun and interesting as it is so far back I'd not feel any concern like discovering dear old granddad was a nazi or something.
    It would be a bit offputting to discover that one's real grandfather was Martin Bormann or Heinrich Himmler.
    Indeed. But not if it was your great great great great granddad.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    As I get ready for NY, I am aware I will be entering the true citadel of wokerati.

    My friends are telling me I’m going to have to straighten up my act in a world of “affinity groups” etc.

    Should be fun.

    North Yorkshire? Nay lad, t'aint nowt woke 'round ere.

    As t'locals say: "T'ain't woke? Don't fix it."
    The nearest one gets to woke is the Goths at Whitby.
    Women in chains is very popular there too.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    Charles 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.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    Cos it wouldn't have the slightest effect or influence on his existence post mortem, that kind of principle? Or do you think the scandal might extend his time in purgatory?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. F, gotta impose modern perspectives on the past.

    Not to mention, focusing on those two might neglect Sir Roger Mortimer, who was probably far more interesting than either.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    One of the things I am interested in (vaguely) is that the modern assumption is that one’s sexuality is utterly essential to one’s identity.

    I don’t think that’s always been the case.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733

    kle4 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.
    I'm not sure what secretive means in this context. We know when he is on holiday, the details of them are irrelevant except for, as you note, the issue of if someone else is paying etc.
    I’m delighted that the Prime Minister is on holiday in Spain as it meant that most restrictions on overseas travel had to be lifted last week.
    No, just a handy coincidence. Just like India being left off the "Red List" last year when Pakistan and Bangladesh were on it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    Charles 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.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    Dead people lose their right to privacy.

    Especially if they are “famous” (which your cousin is to the extent that he left his house to the NT, and has a wiki page).

    The most legitimate grievance you seem to have is mischaracterisation, I think.
    I guess the moral of the story is if you want your privacy respected posthumously, then don't bequeath anything to the NT.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    Charles 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.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    Dead people lose their right to privacy.

    Especially if they are “famous” (which your cousin is to the extent that he left his house to the NT, and has a wiki page).

    The most legitimate grievance you seem to have is mischaracterisation, I think.
    I guess the moral of the story is if you want your privacy respected posthumously, then don't bequeath anything to the NT.
    Or be famous enough to have a wiki article.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    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
    It’s not a crisis. It’s an opportunity.

    That’s the spirit.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914

    Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.

    His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".

    The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.


    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20

    One of the interesting challenges coming up.

    Ideally, the government want to beliefs to be prevalent;
    1 Brexit Is Done (because that is a genuine substantial achievement, even if one thinks it's a foolish one, and most people would love to change the subject.)
    2 Brexit Is In Peril, and Only Boris Can Save Brexit (because otherwise why would Brexit Coalition continue to Back Boris?)

    Holding those two together isn't that difficult politically. The harder bit is the governmental aspect- keeping a situation where it's almost a crisis but not quite going is awfully hard work.
    Johnson's best chance at hanging on to his majority is to turn the next election into Brexit purity test. The shitmunchers still love banging on about WW2 so he has to position Brexit in similar state of cultural fixity.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979
    Charles 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.
    Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?
    Interesting question to which I am not sure there is a clear answer. How public their life is clearly matters, as does time from death. An 18th century PM, yes absolutely fine. A random Joe at their funeral, no.

    But also if x and y are in a relationship they agree not to make public, x dies and y wants to talk about it openly, perhaps because they visit the grave regularly for example, it seems unreasonable to expect them not to in perpetuity.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478

    One of the things I am interested in (vaguely) is that the modern assumption is that one’s sexuality is utterly essential to one’s identity.

    I don’t think that’s always been the case.

    No one knew anyone's sexuality in the past. You were either straight or at risk of prison. Unless you were extremely well-connected.
    Zoomers don't give a flying monkey's about it. So, I think it is a brief interlude.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005

    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.
    Where's the 'downvote' button?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    Pro_Rata said:

    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.
    I think if Starmer is working towards a solid reasonably received plan for government, that will help some.

    But any Labour plan does depend somewhat on Boris blowing up. His chutzpah is such that he doesn't yet seem to have to face any consequences of his prime ministerial actions, he just skips on. Indeed a lot of the chaos is sown deliberately to obscure reality. He is behaving as PM in the same way as he does personally, and in dangerous times to boot. If he goes on for long enough he will eventually be hung by his own petard over something, but what and when are the $64000 questions here. It isn't happening tomorrow, and it probably isn't happening over the next 10 things that might sink less evasive characters.

    The one thing I will say in Labour's favour here is that, mid-term or not, I don't quite see who has turned away but will swing back Tory in big enough numbers between now and the election. I don't see where the Tories go to turn a 4% mid term lead back into an 8-9% election victory next time, even if that would be the normal expectation. And if Labour make further, even slight, inroads, then the election looks very tight to me in terms of the usual, keys to number 10, winning line.
    How many Refuk candidates will there be at the next election? They keep polling around 3%.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited October 13
    dixiedean said:

    One of the things I am interested in (vaguely) is that the modern assumption is that one’s sexuality is utterly essential to one’s identity.

    I don’t think that’s always been the case.

    No one knew anyone's sexuality in the past. You were either straight or at risk of prison. Unless you were extremely well-connected.
    Zoomers don't give a flying monkey's about it. So, I think it is a brief interlude.
    There are those C19 trials where the Times reporter usually shuts up with "The evidence was too disgusting to publish". As they were often a conflict between gent and proletarian it was never easy to be sure whether the prole was telling the truth or blackmailing an easy target.So gent often got let off - but the aura would remain.

    PS But yes, the point re the young today is a good one.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343

    As I get ready for NY, I am aware I will be entering the true citadel of wokerati.

    My friends are telling me I’m going to have to straighten up my act in a world of “affinity groups” etc.

    Should be fun.

    If 'Real Housewives of New York City' is representative, it is full of middle aged wealthy women who are gagging for it. (When not having arguments with each other.)
This discussion has been closed.