On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
No. Old Bexley and Sidcup today is far more important to Boris' future than North Shropshire.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
I think HYUFD is right. All the press reports from Bexley suggest that most voters are going to hold their noses and vote Tory, or just stay at home - thus low turnout (it's December, though the weather is OK today) but a safe hold. There will be the usual debate about looking at numbers vs percentages, and Labour will be able to show a significantly reduced majority in numbers terms, but that's it. LibDem gains are interesting and help sustain the narrative, but are to some extent priced in by Tory MPs in mid-term. Johnson looks safe to me for now.
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
Get a PCR test - they are free and there is plenty of spare capacity at the moment.
An issue with lateral flow tests is that some people are not very effective at self administering them - the new ones that are nose swabs only are a lot easier.
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
According to Prof Spector, a cough is no longer one of the key covid symptoms for those who are vaccinated - whereas it is prominent in the winter cold currently doing the rounds. However loss of taste/smell is a key symptom. If the loss of taste/smell is no more than you'd expect from having a bunged up nose, I'd bet on it being the cold. If it is more marked than that, best get a test.
Yes, I think get a test. LFTs aren't perfect, and they are as we all know not trivial to self-administer. Nothing much to lose by having an external test.
The current LFTs are dead easy to administer, and take only 15 minutes to give a result. They will tell you with around 95% certainty whether you are currently shedding enough virus to be infectious. They're not intended to diagnose infection.
Yup, I've definitely reversed my position on LFTs. They have a lot more use than I previously thought.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
According to Prof Spector, a cough is no longer one of the key covid symptoms for those who are vaccinated - whereas it is prominent in the winter cold currently doing the rounds. However loss of taste/smell is a key symptom. If the loss of taste/smell is no more than you'd expect from having a bunged up nose, I'd bet on it being the cold. If it is more marked than that, best get a test.
Yes, I think get a test. LFTs aren't perfect, and they are as we all know not trivial to self-administer. Nothing much to lose by having an external test.
The current LFTs are dead easy to administer, and take only 15 minutes to give a result. They will tell you with around 95% certainty whether you are currently shedding enough virus to be infectious. They're not intended to diagnose infection.
Yup, I've definitely reversed my position on LFTs. They have a lot more use than I previously thought.
The nose swab only ones are a big improvement when giving them to children.
I've just renewed our Economist subs for another three years - a Christmas gift for Mrs J.
The renewal email states: "Another year of insight awaits"
Not 'three years'. a year. To make matters worse, the order summary shows the amount paid correctly, but makes no mention of the term.
Yes, it's trivial, but it's also annoying.
That sort of thing isn't trivial - it results in a pile of customer support calls that cost money.
The Economist used to get stuff like that right. I have been waiting for some time for them to 'ring me back in five minutes' which was their response when I rang with a query about renewing a subscription. I'm doubtful whether I shall bother now.
It's kind of amazing how shitty the whole process still is for paying for news, years into the internet. Each individual subscription flow is full of fail, and there's no way I'm paying for a full subscription for things I only want to read every now and then, as if it was the 1970s and I was getting a single newspaper delivered to my door. I really like news, I'm not short of cash, and I'm happy to pay for it, but the result of the industry's disfunction is that I only pay for a single online subscription (the Yglesias substack).
Netflix worked out how to do it for TV: You pay a single reasonable flat fee, for everything, and because it's reasonable, loads and loads of people pay it.
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
According to Prof Spector, a cough is no longer one of the key covid symptoms for those who are vaccinated - whereas it is prominent in the winter cold currently doing the rounds. However loss of taste/smell is a key symptom. If the loss of taste/smell is no more than you'd expect from having a bunged up nose, I'd bet on it being the cold. If it is more marked than that, best get a test.
Yes, I think get a test. LFTs aren't perfect, and they are as we all know not trivial to self-administer. Nothing much to lose by having an external test.
The current LFTs are dead easy to administer, and take only 15 minutes to give a result. They will tell you with around 95% certainty whether you are currently shedding enough virus to be infectious. They're not intended to diagnose infection.
Yup, I've definitely reversed my position on LFTs. They have a lot more use than I previously thought.
The nose swab only ones are a big improvement when giving them to children.
And doing them yourself. I'm reasonably good at suppressing the gag reflex, but it was a major pain.
Suggesting perhaps something like 1000 Omicron cases in the UK in late November. Perhaps at the upper end of expectations, but not terribly surprising.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
If symptomatic get a PCR. LFTs are useful for picking up asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infection, but go straight for a PCR if having symptoms.
Loss of taste/smell is one of the symptoms where you are supposed to get a PCR. A work colleague with a cold did several negative LFTs before testing positive after 3 or 4 days.
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
According to Prof Spector, a cough is no longer one of the key covid symptoms for those who are vaccinated - whereas it is prominent in the winter cold currently doing the rounds. However loss of taste/smell is a key symptom. If the loss of taste/smell is no more than you'd expect from having a bunged up nose, I'd bet on it being the cold. If it is more marked than that, best get a test.
Yes, I think get a test. LFTs aren't perfect, and they are as we all know not trivial to self-administer. Nothing much to lose by having an external test.
The current LFTs are dead easy to administer, and take only 15 minutes to give a result. They will tell you with around 95% certainty whether you are currently shedding enough virus to be infectious. They're not intended to diagnose infection.
I don't think they are that easy, honestly. They're rather like postal votes, which are not difficult once you get the hang of them, but also have multi-page handbooks. Have you washed your hands enough, and how much does it matter? How far do you really press up your nose? What does "with force" mean exactly when you depress the plunger? There's scope for getting things wrong, and if you're feeling grotty all the more. not knocking regular LFTs, but in this particular case getting a PCR seems sensible.
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
According to Prof Spector, a cough is no longer one of the key covid symptoms for those who are vaccinated - whereas it is prominent in the winter cold currently doing the rounds. However loss of taste/smell is a key symptom. If the loss of taste/smell is no more than you'd expect from having a bunged up nose, I'd bet on it being the cold. If it is more marked than that, best get a test.
Yes, I think get a test. LFTs aren't perfect, and they are as we all know not trivial to self-administer. Nothing much to lose by having an external test.
The current LFTs are dead easy to administer, and take only 15 minutes to give a result. They will tell you with around 95% certainty whether you are currently shedding enough virus to be infectious. They're not intended to diagnose infection.
Yup, I've definitely reversed my position on LFTs. They have a lot more use than I previously thought.
The nose swab only ones are a big improvement when giving them to children.
And doing them yourself. I'm reasonably good at suppressing the gag reflex, but it was a major pain.
Indeed. I use them before meeting people, fairly regularly - because of the children we have enough of the things to build a play fort....
A bunch of states, including Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin, still have old anti-abortion statutes on the books, so if they flat-out overturn Roe vs Wade (as opposed to give states a way to pick the lock), abortion will be banned there without needing to pass any more legislation.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
You disagree with the statement that "changes which harm their [ie womens'] rights matter". Really?
No-one is proposing changes which discriminate against transpeople. But trans activists are proposing changes - legislative and social which will harm women. They want the abolition of single space exemptions in the Equality Act, they want "sex" to be removed as a "protected characteristic" which will impact the Equal Pay Act, inter alia, and they want to abolish the offence of rape by deception, for example. They want transwomen with male bodies and convicted of sex offences against women to be housed in womens' prisons even when this has led to women being raped by those offenders. They want such people to be allowed into womens' refuges and rape crisis centres. Trans right activists are currently campaigning to allow young children to change their gender without their parents having a say or even being informed. Teaching a child to keep something secret is an absolute no-no from a safeguarding perspective - a red flag rather than something to be campaigned for. Trans right activists want girls who present with dysphoria to be pushed onto a path involving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones without the option of therapy, a path which will lead to infertility, life-long medication and an inability to enjoy sex and have orgasms.
I could go on. I won't. But the changes which are being proposed and in some cases close to being enacted (in Scotland) have very real harmful consequences for women and girls and the way these consequences are waved away or ignored or thought of as unimportant by men is proof, if this were needed, of why women need protection against male indifference, discrimination and active malice.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Thanks. I am against further restrictions on abortion, and particularly against any restrictions which in effect target poorer (and hence non-white) populations in terms of impact, even while appearing as all being equal before the law.
BUT. The unconstitutionality of the vigilante components of the Texas law must be overturned if the law and order is to be preserved in any true sense of the term. To me, the abortion aspects are big, the constitutionality aspects are end-of-civilised-society huge.
To the benefit of the Dems, I'd hope. America is very polarized but I find it hard to believe there's a net national electoral benefit in turning the clock on female autonomy back to before the civil rights era.
To the benefit of the Dems, I'd hope. America is very polarized but I find it hard to believe there's a net national electoral benefit in turning the clock on female autonomy back to before the civil rights era.
While I'd agree with the aspiration of your post, I lack your confidence on the impact on voting.
Suggesting perhaps something like 1000 Omicron cases in the UK in late November. Perhaps at the upper end of expectations, but not terribly surprising.
How do you get a figure of 1000? In the thread they give a figure of 60.
A bunch of states, including Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin, still have old anti-abortion statutes on the books, so if they flat-out overturn Roe vs Wade (as opposed to give states a way to pick the lock), abortion will be banned there without needing to pass any more legislation.
You can't ban all abortion. You can only ban safe abortion. The only thing abortion bans do is kill women.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
You disagree with the statement that "changes which harm their [ie womens'] rights matter". Really?
(Snip)
I disagree with the bit you cut off your quote: "not some tiny minority".
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
By Election wins used to be a joke when UKIP won Clacton and Rochester and the betting advice was to lay them. Now the Lib Dems have won one they are seismic events
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
I would seriously recommend a check-up course of some kind for drivers every 10 years. It is worth it, just for your own safety.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
No. Old Bexley and Sidcup today is far more important to Boris' future than North Shropshire.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
I think HYUFD is right. All the press reports from Bexley suggest that most voters are going to hold their noses and vote Tory, or just stay at home - thus low turnout (it's December, though the weather is OK today) but a safe hold. There will be the usual debate about looking at numbers vs percentages, and Labour will be able to show a significantly reduced majority in numbers terms, but that's it. LibDem gains are interesting and help sustain the narrative, but are to some extent priced in by Tory MPs in mid-term. Johnson looks safe to me for now.
Yep. I think Labour has a ceiling in OBS which isn't anywhere near high enough for a win. And while RefUK may well take votes from the Tories, they'll likely suppress the Labour vote too. North Shropshire is a completely different ball-game as the LibDems are an easy protest vote for people wishing to send Boris a message (as they did in nearby Brecon & Radnor not so very long ago.)
Negative LFT test so off to a u3a meeting shortly.
However, an (even more) off topic question. Mrs C had a refund of miss-sold PPI and has now had an unexpected and unsought letter from a firm of accountants previously unknown to us, say that she was charged income tax on the refund, she shouldn't have been and that, presumably for a fee, they'll get the tax back for her. Is this genuine? She was paying tax at the time of the miss-selling, and at the time of the refund.
There are quite a few engineers out there who would say that blaming the merger with MD is a cheap shot - that the real problems run a lot deeper than that.
To the benefit of the Dems, I'd hope. America is very polarized but I find it hard to believe there's a net national electoral benefit in turning the clock on female autonomy back to before the civil rights era.
I'd like this to be true. I fear it isn't. There have been roll backs on womens' rights in other countries. No reason why this won't happen in the US.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
You disagree with the statement that "changes which harm their [ie womens'] rights matter". Really?
(Snip)
I disagree with the bit you cut off your quote: "not some tiny minority".
That, to be clear, was not meant as a reference to transpeople, but to the fact that women are not some tiny minority who should be ignored. I do not think that transpeople should be ignored either - as I have made clear. And they aren't - legally. Gender recognition is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act, just as sex is. But no-one is campaigning for it to be removed whereas people are campaigning for sex to be removed from the Act.
The one thing that trans people need - proper medical help and care - is the one thing which is not talked about. It is all about redefining women, demanding that lesbians have sex with men with penises, wanting access to womens spaces. That strikes me as a movement which is less concerned about helping transpeople and more about attacking women and reducing their rights. It feels like - and in many of its actions appears to be - a mens' rights movement using the trans label as a convenient cover for the gullible.
There are quite a few engineers out there who would say that blaming the merger with MD is a cheap shot - that the real problems run a lot deeper than that.
It is not the MD merger per se that is blamed but the "shareholder value" school of management.
Negative LFT test so off to a u3a meeting shortly.
However, an (even more) off topic question. Mrs C had a refund of missed PPI and has now had an unexpected and unsought letter from a firm of accountants previously unknown to us, say that she was charged income tax on the refund, she shouldn't have been and that, presumably for a fee, they'll get the tax back for her. Is this genuine? She was paying tax at the time of the misselling, and at the time of the refund.
Sounds like a scam. Especially if it contains no actual information about your specific refund - so many people have had them now that they can afford to go phishing
Suggesting perhaps something like 1000 Omicron cases in the UK in late November. Perhaps at the upper end of expectations, but not terribly surprising.
If I may be allowed to interact with you, O Chris, don't we just assume that any new variant is everywhere sooner or later. As for discovery, someone just put their hand in the flowing river and picked up a salmon. Doesn't mean salmon weren't swimming before during and after.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There are quite a few engineers out there who would say that blaming the merger with MD is a cheap shot - that the real problems run a lot deeper than that.
It is not the MD merger per se that is blamed but the "shareholder value" school of management.
Indeed, strong safety cultures, like Boeing's pre-merger culture, often do not survive large mergers. So, yes, for long lead time product development companies, like aviation, it can take 20 years for impacts to surface.
I am buying the book as this fits in very much with exactly what I do for a living, and fits the pattern of what I see in my engagements with governments, research institutions, hospitals and corporations.
There are quite a few engineers out there who would say that blaming the merger with MD is a cheap shot - that the real problems run a lot deeper than that.
It is not the MD merger per se that is blamed but the "shareholder value" school of management.
That's a part of it - but Pfizer, for example, live in the same universe. For me, the money quote was the Boeing exec saying that they didn't need to innovate.
What is not understood in many a C suite, is that if your company stops innovating, your company won't just run out of tomorrows products. It will run out of the knowledge to maintain and improve todays products.....
To the benefit of the Dems, I'd hope. America is very polarized but I find it hard to believe there's a net national electoral benefit in turning the clock on female autonomy back to before the civil rights era.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
You disagree with the statement that "changes which harm their [ie womens'] rights matter". Really?
(Snip)
I disagree with the bit you cut off your quote: "not some tiny minority".
That, to be clear, was not meant as a reference to transpeople, but to the fact that women are not some tiny minority who should be ignored. I do not think that transpeople should be ignored either - as I have made clear. And they aren't - legally. Gender recognition is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act, just as sex is. But no-one is campaigning for it to be removed whereas people are campaigning for sex to be removed from the Act.
The one thing that trans people need - proper medical help and care - is the one thing which is not talked about. It is all about redefining women, demanding that lesbians have sex with men with penises, wanting access to womens spaces. That strikes me as a movement which is less concerned about helping transpeople and more about attacking women and reducing their rights. It feels like - and in many of its actions appears to be - a mens' rights movement using the trans label as a convenient cover for the gullible.
It is, as I keep saying, a very basic numbers game. Trans people exist and are entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else, but are outnumbered millions-to-one by shits and fantasists. Leaping in to defend every twat who says "I want to be a man and have babies" and "I want to change from a man into a lesbian woman with a dick" does as big a disservice to the genuinely trans as it is easy to imagine.
Negative LFT test so off to a u3a meeting shortly.
However, an (even more) off topic question. Mrs C had a refund of miss-sold PPI and has now had an unexpected and unsought letter from a firm of accountants previously unknown to us, say that she was charged income tax on the refund, she shouldn't have been and that, presumably for a fee, they'll get the tax back for her. Is this genuine? She was paying tax at the time of the miss-selling, and at the time of the refund.
Suggesting perhaps something like 1000 Omicron cases in the UK in late November. Perhaps at the upper end of expectations, but not terribly surprising.
How do you get a figure of 1000? In the thread they give a figure of 60.
I get 1000 by looking at the rise in that curve, which amounts to about 0.25%, and multiplying by the current number of COVID infections in the UK, which must be roughly 500,000 (there are 300,000 positive tests a week).
I think 60 must relate to the number of samples that test was actually performed on. It can't be an estimate of the total number of Omicron infections in the UK.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Thanks. I am against further restrictions on abortion, and particularly against any restrictions which in effect target poorer (and hence non-white) populations in terms of impact, even while appearing as all being equal before the law.
BUT. The unconstitutionality of the vigilante components of the Texas law must be overturned if the law and order is to be preserved in any true sense of the term. To me, the abortion aspects are big, the constitutionality aspects are end-of-civilised-society huge.
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Exempli gratia
Honestly, why do they do it? Why do people in the public eye feel the need to tweet things which will come back and bite them on the bottom? The upside to tweets like this is a brief endorphin hit as like-minded people retweet it. That's it. The downside is potentially damaging your career for saying something that didn't need saying.
Suggesting perhaps something like 1000 Omicron cases in the UK in late November. Perhaps at the upper end of expectations, but not terribly surprising.
If I may be allowed to interact with you, O Chris, don't we just assume that any new variant is everywhere sooner or later. As for discovery, someone just put their hand in the flowing river and picked up a salmon. Doesn't mean salmon weren't swimming before during and after.
Yes, I agree. But this probably gives us a better idea of when Omicron will become dominant.
Suggesting perhaps something like 1000 Omicron cases in the UK in late November. Perhaps at the upper end of expectations, but not terribly surprising.
If the Omicron S drop out signature is confirming a regional bias in the seeding, it looks likely we'll get a heavily regionalised outbreaks first, so local R values in London and areas around Glasgow look relevant, as then will the Home Counties and Central Belt as a whole. Be interesting to see if these places start to stack the top of Malmesbury's R chart in the next week or two.
I'm suspecting this wave will look more like alpha/Kent at least initially, rather than the more weakly regional pattern seen for Delta (yes, there were definite initial hotspots, but this quickly dissipated). The nature of any restrictions may also influence this. By the other side of New Year, it may fall into a more Delta type pattern although with cities (which have had weak Delta waves) once again more vulnerable.
(If my language is that of risk, I am bearing in mind this could be a mild wave predominantly of the vaccinated and previously infected and I'm talking primarily of pattern of infection rather than level of hospitalisation, though it is, of course, related).
Ha, well well done to whoever thought of it. I have no brief cheerleading for Michael Deacon in particular. Nor any particular gripe against Piers Corbyn, come to that. I don't think he's the worst Corbyn or the worst Piers. I just thought it was a clever line.
To the benefit of the Dems, I'd hope. America is very polarized but I find it hard to believe there's a net national electoral benefit in turning the clock on female autonomy back to before the civil rights era.
While I'd agree with the aspiration of your post, I lack your confidence on the impact on voting.
To the benefit of the Dems, I'd hope. America is very polarized but I find it hard to believe there's a net national electoral benefit in turning the clock on female autonomy back to before the civil rights era.
I'd like this to be true. I fear it isn't. There have been roll backs on womens' rights in other countries. No reason why this won't happen in the US.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
You disagree with the statement that "changes which harm their [ie womens'] rights matter". Really?
(Snip)
I disagree with the bit you cut off your quote: "not some tiny minority".
That, to be clear, was not meant as a reference to transpeople, but to the fact that women are not some tiny minority who should be ignored. I do not think that transpeople should be ignored either - as I have made clear. And they aren't - legally. Gender recognition is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act, just as sex is. But no-one is campaigning for it to be removed whereas people are campaigning for sex to be removed from the Act.
The one thing that trans people need - proper medical help and care - is the one thing which is not talked about. It is all about redefining women, demanding that lesbians have sex with men with penises, wanting access to womens spaces. That strikes me as a movement which is less concerned about helping transpeople and more about attacking women and reducing their rights. It feels like - and in many of its actions appears to be - a mens' rights movement using the trans label as a convenient cover for the gullible.
I haven't yet come across an episode on the trans issue but re-watching The West Wing it is extraordinary how relevant and salient the issues it covered remain today - everything from renewables, to Saudi, to womens' rights, etc.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
"Tarquin, supported by the business acumen and drive of his sister Athene..."
My wife noticed the shop in Padstow - it was everything you might imagine. Complete with the sales staff with fake tan, who appeared to be rejects from a reality show about LA Estate Agents....
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Exempli gratia
Honestly, why do they do it? Why do people in the public eye feel the need to tweet things which will come back and bite them on the bottom? The upside to tweets like this is a brief endorphin hit as like-minded people retweet it. That's it. The downside is potentially damaging your career for saying something that didn't need saying.
These are the sorts of jokes that people might make at the pub or the back seat of a bus. Joke, laugh, forgotten.
On Twitter they live forever.
And people give them the same weight as a sworn affidavit.
"Tarquin, supported by the business acumen and drive of his sister Athene..."
My wife noticed the shop in Padstow - it was everything you might imagine. Complete with the sales staff with fake tan, who appeared to be rejects from a reality show about LA Estate Agents....
"Tarquin, supported by the business acumen and drive of his sister Athene..."
My wife noticed the shop in Padstow - it was everything you might imagine. Complete with the sales staff with fake tan, who appeared to be rejects from a reality show about LA Estate Agents....
The Fowey one is the same or more so.
Actually, it was Fowey. Brain failure on my part.
The off-licence "Shipmates" not far away was quite pleasant.
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Exempli gratia
Honestly, why do they do it? Why do people in the public eye feel the need to tweet things which will come back and bite them on the bottom? The upside to tweets like this is a brief endorphin hit as like-minded people retweet it. That's it. The downside is potentially damaging your career for saying something that didn't need saying.
These are the sorts of jokes that people might make at the pub or the back seat of a bus. Joke, laugh, forgotten.
On Twitter they live forever.
And people give them the same weight as a sworn affidavit.
It's that mismatch which is causing issues.
“ Isn’t this what John Locke meant when he talked about the sanctity of private life, a space to debate and discuss, to learn from criticism and feedback, thus enabling one to reach more considered positions? The court of Twitter makes no such distinctions, however. Whispered conversions are turned into battering rams. Private text messages become de facto suicide notes.
But while we bemoan these trends, we should be honest, too. The growing appetite for mob justice, the way that the pack hunts the latest quarry through the fox hunt of the hashtag, isn’t just about the scent of blood. It is also about a catastrophic loss of faith in due process. I am not merely talking about the farce of the parliamentary inquiry into the lobbying by Owen Paterson, or even the rigged investigation into racism alleged by Rafiq and now dozens of others. We perhaps all know how vested interests and dubious quid pro quos polluted the search for truth in these cases. No, I am talking about a wider panoply of stitch-ups, a steady corrosion of natural justice, something we all feel in our bones.
Isn’t this a key reason why the appetite for mob justice is on the up and up — why bother waiting for an “independent” inquiry when it is likely to prove a travesty anyway? Isn’t this why retrospective inquisitions are becoming more vicious? Isn’t it why the concept of forgiveness — a notion central to the western moral tradition — has been conflagrated on a pyre of digital indignation?”
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Exempli gratia
Honestly, why do they do it? Why do people in the public eye feel the need to tweet things which will come back and bite them on the bottom? The upside to tweets like this is a brief endorphin hit as like-minded people retweet it. That's it. The downside is potentially damaging your career for saying something that didn't need saying.
These are the sorts of jokes that people might make at the pub or the back seat of a bus. Joke, laugh, forgotten.
On Twitter they live forever.
And people give them the same weight as a sworn affidavit.
It's that mismatch which is causing issues.
Yes, I agree. But I think if you are going to put something out for everyone to read in the way Twitter does you probably need to be a bit more considered with your thoughts if you want to be taken seriously. Frankie Boyle, for example, could get away with saying something like this. But Frankie Boyle probably wouldn't be considered for presenting the Today programme.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
I would seriously recommend a check-up course of some kind for drivers every 10 years. It is worth it, just for your own safety.
To the benefit of the Dems, I'd hope. America is very polarized but I find it hard to believe there's a net national electoral benefit in turning the clock on female autonomy back to before the civil rights era.
While I'd agree with the aspiration of your post, I lack your confidence on the impact on voting.
I'm actually not confident. I never thought this would happen, it's amazing to me, but it looks like it will. I just hope there's a backlash so big that it can't be resisted.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
Hot on the heels on #1 I see the government this morning is saying “no snogging under the mistletoe”. Although it won’t actually be illegal.
The messaging on Christmas is an unmitigated disaster. It has wiped millions off the hospitality industry’s profits at a time when they were just starting to recover.
Last week, when very minor interventions were reintroduced, I said it would a) spook and scare the public and b) damage people’s mental health, because they will now be looking over their shoulders for more restrictions.
I was 100% right on both counts.
Since then we have had Jennie Harries saying only go to a party if you “really need to” and this latest idiot talking about mistletoe.
A reminder. There are 32 confirmed cases on omicron in the UK. Thirty two. Three two.
By the time the Christmas party season ends in a fortnight, even if there are a few thousand, the chances of encountering one are infinitesimal.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Exempli gratia
Honestly, why do they do it? Why do people in the public eye feel the need to tweet things which will come back and bite them on the bottom? The upside to tweets like this is a brief endorphin hit as like-minded people retweet it. That's it. The downside is potentially damaging your career for saying something that didn't need saying.
These are the sorts of jokes that people might make at the pub or the back seat of a bus. Joke, laugh, forgotten.
On Twitter they live forever.
And people give them the same weight as a sworn affidavit.
It's that mismatch which is causing issues.
“ Isn’t this what John Locke meant when he talked about the sanctity of private life, a space to debate and discuss, to learn from criticism and feedback, thus enabling one to reach more considered positions? The court of Twitter makes no such distinctions, however. Whispered conversions are turned into battering rams. Private text messages become de facto suicide notes.
But while we bemoan these trends, we should be honest, too. The growing appetite for mob justice, the way that the pack hunts the latest quarry through the fox hunt of the hashtag, isn’t just about the scent of blood. It is also about a catastrophic loss of faith in due process. I am not merely talking about the farce of the parliamentary inquiry into the lobbying by Owen Paterson, or even the rigged investigation into racism alleged by Rafiq and now dozens of others. We perhaps all know how vested interests and dubious quid pro quos polluted the search for truth in these cases. No, I am talking about a wider panoply of stitch-ups, a steady corrosion of natural justice, something we all feel in our bones.
Isn’t this a key reason why the appetite for mob justice is on the up and up — why bother waiting for an “independent” inquiry when it is likely to prove a travesty anyway? Isn’t this why retrospective inquisitions are becoming more vicious? Isn’t it why the concept of forgiveness — a notion central to the western moral tradition — has been conflagrated on a pyre of digital indignation?”
While I'm sympathetic to Syed's argument, I'm not sure that referring to the parliamentary inquiry into Owen Paterson's lobbying as a "farce" is helpful to it. Mainly because it wasn't.
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Exempli gratia
Honestly, why do they do it? Why do people in the public eye feel the need to tweet things which will come back and bite them on the bottom? The upside to tweets like this is a brief endorphin hit as like-minded people retweet it. That's it. The downside is potentially damaging your career for saying something that didn't need saying.
These are the sorts of jokes that people might make at the pub or the back seat of a bus. Joke, laugh, forgotten.
On Twitter they live forever.
And people give them the same weight as a sworn affidavit.
It's that mismatch which is causing issues.
Yes, I agree. But I think if you are going to put something out for everyone to read in the way Twitter does you probably need to be a bit more considered with your thoughts if you want to be taken seriously. Frankie Boyle, for example, could get away with saying something like this. But Frankie Boyle probably wouldn't be considered for presenting the Today programme.
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Exempli gratia
Honestly, why do they do it? Why do people in the public eye feel the need to tweet things which will come back and bite them on the bottom? The upside to tweets like this is a brief endorphin hit as like-minded people retweet it. That's it. The downside is potentially damaging your career for saying something that didn't need saying.
These are the sorts of jokes that people might make at the pub or the back seat of a bus. Joke, laugh, forgotten.
On Twitter they live forever.
And people give them the same weight as a sworn affidavit.
It's that mismatch which is causing issues.
“ Isn’t this what John Locke meant when he talked about the sanctity of private life, a space to debate and discuss, to learn from criticism and feedback, thus enabling one to reach more considered positions? The court of Twitter makes no such distinctions, however. Whispered conversions are turned into battering rams. Private text messages become de facto suicide notes.
But while we bemoan these trends, we should be honest, too. The growing appetite for mob justice, the way that the pack hunts the latest quarry through the fox hunt of the hashtag, isn’t just about the scent of blood. It is also about a catastrophic loss of faith in due process. I am not merely talking about the farce of the parliamentary inquiry into the lobbying by Owen Paterson, or even the rigged investigation into racism alleged by Rafiq and now dozens of others. We perhaps all know how vested interests and dubious quid pro quos polluted the search for truth in these cases. No, I am talking about a wider panoply of stitch-ups, a steady corrosion of natural justice, something we all feel in our bones.
Isn’t this a key reason why the appetite for mob justice is on the up and up — why bother waiting for an “independent” inquiry when it is likely to prove a travesty anyway? Isn’t this why retrospective inquisitions are becoming more vicious? Isn’t it why the concept of forgiveness — a notion central to the western moral tradition — has been conflagrated on a pyre of digital indignation?”
While I'm sympathetic to Syed's argument, I'm not sure that referring to the parliamentary inquiry into Owen Paterson's lobbying as a "farce" is helpful to it. Mainly because it wasn't.
Does he mean the PM's botched intervention or the parliamentary inquiry itself. I would read it as the former despite the words used but could be wrong?
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Utterly appalling in its indifference to the effect on the woman, the impact on the child, and in how entirely unsurprising it is from her.
50 suspected omicron cases in Norway after a company dinner with 100 people in attendence. One of the attendees recently back from South Africa. All 50 suspected cases had had at least 2 shots of the vaccine.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
I suspect Amy's heart is still softer than HYUFD's....
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
Funny how diehard abortion on demand liberals think allowing abortion on demand is fine but allowing babies to be born rather than terminated at any stage and just adopted is somehow more heartless.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
50 suspected omicron cases in Norway after a company dinner with 100 people in attendence. One of the attendees recently back from South Africa. All 50 suspected cases had had at least 2 shots of the vaccine.
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
Exempli gratia
Honestly, why do they do it? Why do people in the public eye feel the need to tweet things which will come back and bite them on the bottom? The upside to tweets like this is a brief endorphin hit as like-minded people retweet it. That's it. The downside is potentially damaging your career for saying something that didn't need saying.
These are the sorts of jokes that people might make at the pub or the back seat of a bus. Joke, laugh, forgotten.
On Twitter they live forever.
And people give them the same weight as a sworn affidavit.
It's that mismatch which is causing issues.
“ Isn’t this what John Locke meant when he talked about the sanctity of private life, a space to debate and discuss, to learn from criticism and feedback, thus enabling one to reach more considered positions? The court of Twitter makes no such distinctions, however. Whispered conversions are turned into battering rams. Private text messages become de facto suicide notes.
But while we bemoan these trends, we should be honest, too. The growing appetite for mob justice, the way that the pack hunts the latest quarry through the fox hunt of the hashtag, isn’t just about the scent of blood. It is also about a catastrophic loss of faith in due process. I am not merely talking about the farce of the parliamentary inquiry into the lobbying by Owen Paterson, or even the rigged investigation into racism alleged by Rafiq and now dozens of others. We perhaps all know how vested interests and dubious quid pro quos polluted the search for truth in these cases. No, I am talking about a wider panoply of stitch-ups, a steady corrosion of natural justice, something we all feel in our bones.
Isn’t this a key reason why the appetite for mob justice is on the up and up — why bother waiting for an “independent” inquiry when it is likely to prove a travesty anyway? Isn’t this why retrospective inquisitions are becoming more vicious? Isn’t it why the concept of forgiveness — a notion central to the western moral tradition — has been conflagrated on a pyre of digital indignation?”
While I'm sympathetic to Syed's argument, I'm not sure that referring to the parliamentary inquiry into Owen Paterson's lobbying as a "farce" is helpful to it. Mainly because it wasn't.
Does he mean the PM's botched intervention or the parliamentary inquiry itself. I would read it as the former despite the words used but could be wrong?
You may be right, but if so it's very badly written. The clear meaning of what he writes is that the inquiry itself was a farce.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
All the streets near me are (rightly) 20 mph limits. I have lost count of how many times I have been beeped for driving at the speed limit. The really car twatty thing to do de jour is to beep as you pass as the guy doing the limit turns off.
And I write this as one who has just done a speeding course for speeding on the motorway.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering (you comment above just confirms all 50,000 other posts I wish to add as additional evidence).
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
Funny how diehard abortion on demand liberals think allowing abortion on demand is fine but allowing babies to be born rather than terminated at any stage and just adopted is somehow more heartless.
Funny how you're happy to legislate other people's lives on a matter which will never affect you personally.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
50 suspected omicron cases in Norway after a company dinner with 100 people in attendence. One of the attendees recently back from South Africa. All 50 suspected cases had had at least 2 shots of the vaccine.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
Funny how diehard abortion on demand liberals think allowing abortion on demand is fine but allowing babies to be born rather than terminated at any stage and just adopted is somehow more heartless.
Funny how you're happy to legislate other people's lives on a matter which will never affect you personally.
It will affect the unborn baby, who is just as affected by the legislation as the mother
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
Hot on the heels on #1 I see the government this morning is saying “no snogging under the mistletoe”. Although it won’t actually be illegal.
The messaging on Christmas is an unmitigated disaster. It has wiped millions off the hospitality industry’s profits at a time when they were just starting to recover.
Last week, when very minor interventions were reintroduced, I said it would a) spook and scare the public and b) damage people’s mental health, because they will now be looking over their shoulders for more restrictions.
I was 100% right on both counts.
Since then we have had Jennie Harries saying only go to a party if you “really need to” and this latest idiot talking about mistletoe.
A reminder. There are 32 confirmed cases on omicron in the UK. Thirty two. Three two.
By the time the Christmas party season ends in a fortnight, even if there are a few thousand, the chances of encountering one are infinitesimal.
The rule is you can only snog Matt Hancock or Therese Coffey under the mistletoe.
Comments
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/12/dobbs-supreme-court-abortion-kavanaugh-barrett.html
An issue with lateral flow tests is that some people are not very effective at self administering them - the new ones that are nose swabs only are a lot easier.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Netflix worked out how to do it for TV: You pay a single reasonable flat fee, for everything, and because it's reasonable, loads and loads of people pay it.
I'm reasonably good at suppressing the gag reflex, but it was a major pain.
1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d)
2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/boeing-737-max-flying-blind-peter-robison.html
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe
A bunch of states, including Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin, still have old anti-abortion statutes on the books, so if they flat-out overturn Roe vs Wade (as opposed to give states a way to pick the lock), abortion will be banned there without needing to pass any more legislation.
Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Sarah Phelps
@PhelpsieSarah
I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat.
https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
No-one is proposing changes which discriminate against transpeople. But trans activists are proposing changes - legislative and social which will harm women. They want the abolition of single space exemptions in the Equality Act, they want "sex" to be removed as a "protected characteristic" which will impact the Equal Pay Act, inter alia, and they want to abolish the offence of rape by deception, for example. They want transwomen with male bodies and convicted of sex offences against women to be housed in womens' prisons even when this has led to women being raped by those offenders. They want such people to be allowed into womens' refuges and rape crisis centres. Trans right activists are currently campaigning to allow young children to change their gender without their parents having a say or even being informed. Teaching a child to keep something secret is an absolute no-no from a safeguarding perspective - a red flag rather than something to be campaigned for. Trans right activists want girls who present with dysphoria to be pushed onto a path involving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones without the option of therapy, a path which will lead to infertility, life-long medication and an inability to enjoy sex and have orgasms.
I could go on. I won't. But the changes which are being proposed and in some
cases close to being enacted (in Scotland) have very real harmful consequences for women and girls and the way these consequences are waved away or ignored or thought of as unimportant by men is proof, if this were needed, of why women need protection against male indifference, discrimination and active malice.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/12/01/christmas-may-risk-things-could-worse-just-look-eu/
BUT. The unconstitutionality of the vigilante components of the Texas law must be overturned if the law and order is to be preserved in any true sense of the term. To me, the abortion aspects are big, the constitutionality aspects are end-of-civilised-society huge.
If true, chilling in its indifference.
https://www.tarquinsgin.com
https://newsthump.com/2021/08/02/piers-corbyn-emerges-as-both-the-worst-piers-and-the-worst-corbyn-despite-stiff-competition/
However, an (even more) off topic question. Mrs C had a refund of miss-sold PPI and has now had an unexpected and unsought letter from a firm of accountants previously unknown to us, say that she was charged income tax on the refund, she shouldn't have been and that, presumably for a fee, they'll get the tax back for her.
Is this genuine? She was paying tax at the time of the miss-selling, and at the time of the refund.
Edit: predictive txt strikes again!
The one thing that trans people need - proper medical help and care - is the one thing which is not talked about. It is all about redefining women, demanding that lesbians have sex with men with penises, wanting access to womens spaces. That strikes me as a movement which is less concerned about helping transpeople and more about attacking women and reducing their rights. It feels like - and in many of its actions appears to be - a mens' rights movement using the trans label as a convenient cover for the gullible.
I am buying the book as this fits in very much with exactly what I do for a living, and fits the pattern of what I see in my engagements with governments, research institutions, hospitals and corporations.
What is not understood in many a C suite, is that if your company stops innovating, your company won't just run out of tomorrows products. It will run out of the knowledge to maintain and improve todays products.....
https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2019/04/martin-lewis--had-a-ppi-payout---if-so-you-can-reclaim-the-tax-o/
Then decide whether she is happy doing it herself or wants to pay an accountant.
I think 60 must relate to the number of samples that test was actually performed on. It can't be an estimate of the total number of Omicron infections in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization
They may well, probably will strike the Texas law down anyway, since it's now an inconvenience.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/treasury-has-not-estimated-scale-of-bulb-s-use-of-1-7bn-government-loan/ar-AARlGxw?ocid=entnewsntp
Why should I as a none Bulb customer have to pay extra to cover the loses created by Bulb and the Government's stupid cap.
I'm suspecting this wave will look more like alpha/Kent at least initially, rather than the more weakly regional pattern seen for Delta (yes, there were definite initial hotspots, but this quickly dissipated). The nature of any restrictions may also influence this. By the other side of New Year, it may fall into a more Delta type pattern although with cities (which have had weak Delta waves) once again more vulnerable.
(If my language is that of risk, I am bearing in mind this could be a mild wave predominantly of the vaccinated and previously infected and I'm talking primarily of pattern of infection rather than level of hospitalisation, though it is, of course, related).
Nor any particular gripe against Piers Corbyn, come to that. I don't think he's the worst Corbyn or the worst Piers. I just thought it was a clever line.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Some of the political hacks on the bench may try get tactical (though the out and out ideologues like Thomas and Alito likely won't cooperate in that).
This is quite a good article considering the dynamics.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/12/scotus-will-gaslight-us-until-the-end.html
Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
On Twitter they live forever.
And people give them the same weight as a sworn affidavit.
It's that mismatch which is causing issues.
$1.8bn fundraising:
https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/1466131397891002375
The off-licence "Shipmates" not far away was quite pleasant.
But while we bemoan these trends, we should be honest, too. The growing appetite for mob justice, the way that the pack hunts the latest quarry through the fox hunt of the hashtag, isn’t just about the scent of blood. It is also about a catastrophic loss of faith in due process. I am not merely talking about the farce of the parliamentary inquiry into the lobbying by Owen Paterson, or even the rigged investigation into racism alleged by Rafiq and now dozens of others. We perhaps all know how vested interests and dubious quid pro quos polluted the search for truth in these cases. No, I am talking about a wider panoply of stitch-ups, a steady corrosion of natural justice, something we all feel in our bones.
Isn’t this a key reason why the appetite for mob justice is on the up and up — why bother waiting for an “independent” inquiry when it is likely to prove a travesty anyway? Isn’t this why retrospective inquisitions are becoming more vicious? Isn’t it why the concept of forgiveness — a notion central to the western moral tradition — has been conflagrated on a pyre of digital indignation?”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-new-spectator-sport-has-emerged-and-its-destroying-our-way-of-life-wjdkcqjn2
Frankie Boyle, for example, could get away with saying something like this. But Frankie Boyle probably wouldn't be considered for presenting the Today programme.
Last week, when very minor interventions were reintroduced, I said it would a) spook and scare the public and b) damage people’s mental health, because they will now be looking over their shoulders for more restrictions.
I was 100% right on both counts.
Since then we have had Jennie Harries saying only go to a party if you “really need to” and this latest idiot talking about mistletoe.
A reminder. There are 32 confirmed cases on omicron in the UK. Thirty two. Three two.
By the time the Christmas party season ends in a fortnight, even if there are a few thousand, the chances of encountering one are infinitesimal.
Anyone want to try and explain this to me? How can it not be cheating?
https://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/views/amol-rajan-open-letter-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-cambridge-8381304.html
He says "Even those of us who think your public role a total fraud shall raise a glass to you this evening."
https://www.svd.se/utbrott-i-oslo-hogst-sannolikt-omikron/om/coronaviruset
Big if true. Finding it impossible to negotiate the paywall in Swedish.
He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person.
Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
https://www.thelocal.no/20211201/norway-records-first-omicron-covid-19-variant-cases/ is a different article and (I think) the same story.
It shows how infectious omicron is.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
And I write this as one who has just done a speeding course for speeding on the motorway.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering (you comment above just confirms all 50,000 other posts I wish to add as additional evidence).
I still don't understand how all this relates to symptoms.