In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
kle4 comes closest.
I'll take that - I could use a win.
Actually MattW got it right but I had started writing before I saw his answer. Sorry MattW!
And lo, what Cyclefree gives she may also take away.
Just to be clear, the advice from NHS England-Improvement to NHS Trusts states as follows:
"Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals who have proposed, begun or completed reassignment of gender enjoy legal protection against discrimination. A trans person does not need to have had, or be planning, any medical gender reassignment treatment to be protected under the Equality Act: it is enough if they are undergoing a personal process of changing gender. In addition, good practice requires that clinical responses be patient-centred, respectful and flexible towards all transgender people whether they live continuously or temporarily in a gender role that does not conform to their natal sex. General key points are that: • Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use. • This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia... Those who have undergone transition should be accommodated according to their gender presentation. Different genital or breast sex appearance is not a bar to this, since sufficient privacy can usually be ensured through the use of curtains or by accommodation in a single side room adjacent to a gender appropriate ward."
The energy insulation thing is going to be very difficult for houses/flats in Conservation Areas and listed buildings. Lots of irreplaceable architectural features are going to be trashed under the excuse of progress.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
This pledge purports to list the 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 but it omits one - sex. Why? It also introduces one which does not exist - gender. Again - why?
Trans people are protected by the gender reassignment protected characteristic. As they should be.
This document will have gone through all sorts of drafts, been reviewed by lawyers, Ministers etc. And, yet, they still managed to get it wrong.
A mistake? Or deliberate?
What worries many women is this: discrimination against us, misogyny, violence, harassment etc happen to us because of our sex. So society has decided to make sex a protected characteristic in law in order to tackle this. The obligation is on public bodies. And yet, too often, we increasingly find that those bodies leave sex out or substitute it with gender which is (a) not the same as sex as we are constantly told and (b) not a protected characteristic.
So this raises the suspicion that these bodies are not serious about protecting women from the sex-based discrimination they face. And it is against this context that politicians who seem to equivocate about what women are seem to suggest that they are less than full-hearted in their support for womens' rights under the law.
If sex can be so easily removed from what bodies must take account of despite it being the current law, how can women have any confidence that the current law will even be maintained as it is? Especially when the policy of three of the main political parties is explicitly influenced by lobby groups who expressly want to remove sex from equalities legislation.
So no, @Phil, this is not about trans rights. It's about womens' rights and about why in so many ways - de facto if not de jure - womens' rights are being whittled away in practice.
Though in terms of accommodation in the NHS Constitution sex is used rather than gender:
"make sure that if you have to stay in hospital, you do not sleep in the same room with people of the opposite sex, except in very rare circumstances (for example, emergencies)."
Personally, I think of such documents rather like corporate mission statements. Bland generalities to be ignored.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
kle4 comes closest.
I'll take that - I could use a win.
Actually MattW got it right but I had started writing before I saw his answer. Sorry MattW!
And lo, what Cyclefree gives she may also take away.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside,
Yup. Dumb....
Quite appallingly offensive. There are people dying in Mariopol right now - from bombing but probably also starvation, to take just one of the many places attacked by Russia. In others we hear of executions. We are seeing Stalinist atrocities live in a part of Europe.
Nothing that is happening there is remotely comparable with the EU or Brexit.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
I think Khosrow I did the same thing, presumably without the phones.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
The energy insulation thing is going to be very difficult for houses/flats in Conservation Areas and listed buildings. Lots of irreplaceable architectural features are going to be trashed under the excuse of progress.
There are a lot of homes where it's easy to improve the insulation, add solar panels and whatnot, and as a society we can start with the easy ones. Meanwhile, get the boffins to work out what can be done with listed buildings.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
If Putin is feeling depressed, not a positive development if at all as reported by the Mail's 'sources' , a silver lining is that the utter buffoonery and idiocy of this might cheer him up for a bit and remind him of the success of Brexit. Much of the credit that Johnson has built up with western and eastern europeans ridiculously frittered away, and Alexander Dugin's longstanding goal of European disunity and incoherence revived once again.
Boris has really bad judgement. This is evidence of it yet again.
Really fancy the french for the World Cup. Classy team. I don’t think England have been that bad, but they have lost the breakdown hands down.
France are a class above all other northern hemisphere teams at the moment. And by a way.
They look super slick in the backs. Wilkinson has just highlighted the attacking moves that are unlocking the defence, but I’m not sure how you stop it. The forwards are powerful and are spitting out ball so fast that the defence has not chance to (a) contest the ruck or (b) reset. Cracking stuff.
All their forwards look like they are comfortable with the ball in their hands. The Home Nations all have at least one ot two who don't know what to do other than look for contact.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The opposite unfortunately. Johnson is pandering to his base. The core Conservative constituency doesn't think comparing leaving the EU to Ukraine fighting for survival is disgusting. At all. They think it makes perfect sense. As does his suggestion Starmer would run up the White Flag to Putin.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
Yes, that's the plan if they take Ukrainian cities.
Which is why I think most Ukrainian troops will fight to the bitter end over the last fragments of ruins.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
Yes, that's the plan if they take Ukrainian cities.
Which is why I think most Ukrainian troops will fight to the bitter end over the last fragments of ruins.
They don't have the troop numbers to take the big cities it would seem. Of course things could change. The attack on the military base in Mykolaiv was a real blow to Ukraine.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The opposite unfortunately. Johnson is pandering to his base. The core Conservative constituency doesn't think comparing leaving the EU to Ukraine fighting for survival is disgusting. At all. They think it makes perfect sense. As does his suggestion Starmer would run up the White Flag to Putin.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The opposite unfortunately. Johnson is pandering to his base. The core Conservative constituency doesn't think comparing leaving the EU to Ukraine fighting for survival is disgusting. At all. They think it makes perfect sense. As does his suggestion Starmer would run up the White Flag to Putin.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
The worst of it is, there’ll be some other customer whose particular white they didn’t have, who got red instead
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
Yes, that's the plan if they take Ukrainian cities.
Which is why I think most Ukrainian troops will fight to the bitter end over the last fragments of ruins.
They don't have the troop numbers to take the big cities it would seem. Of course things could change. The attack on the military base in Mykolaiv was a real blow to Ukraine.
If I knew defeat meant ethnic cleansing, deportation or eradication of my brethren, followed by transplanted colonisation of my home by my enemies, I think I'd fight to the death.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
kle4 comes closest.
I'll take that - I could use a win.
Actually MattW got it right but I had started writing before I saw his answer. Sorry MattW!
And lo, what Cyclefree gives she may also take away.
Just to be clear, the advice from NHS England-Improvement to NHS Trusts states as follows:
"Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals who have proposed, begun or completed reassignment of gender enjoy legal protection against discrimination. A trans person does not need to have had, or be planning, any medical gender reassignment treatment to be protected under the Equality Act: it is enough if they are undergoing a personal process of changing gender. In addition, good practice requires that clinical responses be patient-centred, respectful and flexible towards all transgender people whether they live continuously or temporarily in a gender role that does not conform to their natal sex. General key points are that: • Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use. • This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia... Those who have undergone transition should be accommodated according to their gender presentation. Different genital or breast sex appearance is not a bar to this, since sufficient privacy can usually be ensured through the use of curtains or by accommodation in a single side room adjacent to a gender appropriate ward."
That is in Annex B. What it does not explain is quite how this is compatible with promises on single sex wards. Except that I seem to recall that when those promises were made by Tory Ministers, in private they admitted that they were really referring to gender not sex but that it would not be politic to admit this in public. There is a lot of confusion in public bodies about sex and gender. But the reality increasingly is that those exemptions in the Equality Act which permit the provision of single sex spaces are not being used or are being attacked.
And this reduces freedoms and rights which women had for good reason and which they continue to need and will need far into the future.
I find it deeply infuriating that even women in prisons cannot be assured of being safe from rape. Why do you think Elizabeth Fry argued for womens' prisons in the early 19th century - to protect women from sexual exploitation. And now we're permitting it? Under the guise of human rights?? Give me a fucking break. Males with gender dysphoria who still retain male bodies who need to be imprisoned can be made safe in special separate transgender units so that they are not at risk. But not at the expense of women. Women are not the shock absorbers for the male ego.
We get lots of talk about VAWG but when it comes to doing anything about it, the square root of fuck all is done if it interferes even in the slightest with what some men want.
'Something I've noticed over the past week or so here: almost every Ukrainian I spoke to has made it clear that they blame not only Putin, but the average Russian as much (or more) for this war. The view is: we overthrew our corrupt government, and they accept their murderous one'
This is interesting and may help to understand the chasm that has opened up in that part of the world.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
I can think of broadly three possibilities.
1. He genuinely believes it. Given the two articles thing, this is unlikely, but many people have been sent more than a little loopy by the last six years, so perhaps he has come to believe it after the event.
2. It's just a simple attempt to associate current popular thing (Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression) to thing that is indelibly associated with him (Brexit), in the hope of a simple transitive relationship, and thereby marginally increase his popularity.
3. It's part of his strategy to keep provoking 2010s Remainers into outbursts of outrage, to distract them from opposing him on specific grounds that might win over some Leavers, instead of in a way that simply refights the referendum argument all over again.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
Yes, that's the plan if they take Ukrainian cities.
Which is why I think most Ukrainian troops will fight to the bitter end over the last fragments of ruins.
They don't have the troop numbers to take the big cities it would seem. Of course things could change. The attack on the military base in Mykolaiv was a real blow to Ukraine.
If I knew defeat meant ethnic cleansing, deportation or eradication of my brethren, followed by transplanted colonisation of my home by my enemies, I think I'd fight to the death.
What's there to lose?
There was an article last week that suggested part of Putin's motivation for taking Ukraine was it is overwhelmingly white European. Most immigration to Russia however comes from central Asian Republics, so it is an attempt to not only expand Russia but restore its European identity, especially adding in low Russian birthrates.
So while he wants to occupy it he does not want to eliminate the population but absorb as much of it as he can back into Russia
To me everything has changed and how each party faces the huge problems going forward will decide GE24
I do expect problems for labour and the SNP if they object to the development of oil and gas fields within the UK as we becoming self sufficient in the transition to net zero and stop importing energy, not just from Russia but elsewhere when we can provide it ourselves and with high paid UK jobs
Net Zero is one thing - being self-sufficient in energy is another. We can ramp up oil and gas production but that won't make us net zero - investing more in renewables seems the obvious way forward and it wasn't that long ago we had 0% of our energy derived from coal on some days.
The other side of the equation is how much energy we use and whether a few simple measures could reduce our energy consumption but that will depend on the degree to which we are prepared to change (or compromise) our lifestyle to reduce energy consumption. That's going to be the harder sell.
It is a balance but it is a 20 year transition
I would recommend that HMG makes energy efficiency in homes a statutory requirement with a minimum rating of C required on the sale of property, thereby making improving energy efficiency a real positive but also that house sales will need to reflect in negotiations the costs and no doubt the owner reducing the price or the buyer greeing to make the investment
I understand some mortgages are available at at lower interest rates already for energy efficient homes
The cost according to X rebellion is one trillion to insulate all our homes and that is not possible from the government purse
It won't cost anything like a trillion. XR are dickheads.
How much do you think it will cost for every home in the UK
Let's assume there are 20 million homes in the UK. That's probably not too far from the truth.
Now, at the one end you'll have 100 year old homes that have never had any insulation and leak heat like a sieve. On the other, you'll have modern apartment complexes with double or triple glazing, which will require nothing.
Let's also not forget that the 80:20 rule applies here. You can achieve an awful lot pretty easily - you don't need to do *everything*, you can do the most cost effective things (such as roof insulation) pretty easily and cheaply.
So, I'd say you can do an awful lot with just 20 billion.
The easiest thing to do is to make sure that you have the highest standards in new builds, but every time a government proposes doing such a thing, the building industry sucks it collective teeth and mutters darkly about the government's house-building targets, and the standards are watered down, and implementation is delayed.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
I can think of broadly three possibilities.
1. He genuinely believes it. Given the two articles thing, this is unlikely, but many people have been sent more than a little loopy by the last six years, so perhaps he has come to believe it after the event.
2. It's just a simple attempt to associate current popular thing (Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression) to thing that is indelibly associated with him (Brexit), in the hope of a simple transitive relationship, and thereby marginally increase his popularity.
3. It's part of his strategy to keep provoking 2010s Remainers into outbursts of outrage, to distract them from opposing him on specific grounds that might win over some Leavers, instead of in a way that simply refights the referendum argument all over again.
More simply he believes the audience he's addressing - the Conservative base - believes it. It's a Trump strategy he thinks will deliver him a longer period in power, which is all he cares about.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
Yes, that's the plan if they take Ukrainian cities.
Which is why I think most Ukrainian troops will fight to the bitter end over the last fragments of ruins.
They don't have the troop numbers to take the big cities it would seem. Of course things could change. The attack on the military base in Mykolaiv was a real blow to Ukraine.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
Yes, that's the plan if they take Ukrainian cities.
Which is why I think most Ukrainian troops will fight to the bitter end over the last fragments of ruins.
I guess it will make the cities easier to hold, if the inhabitants are dispersed among the further reaches of the Russian Empire.
I cannot recall feeling as angry at a person as I have felt over the last several weeks about Putin.
Don Young, the irascible riverboat captain who did not so much represent Alaska as personify it for half a century in Congress, died Friday as he was flying home to Alaska for yet another political campaign.
Young was 88, the oldest and longest-serving member of the current Congress. In serving the 49th state for 49 years, he had become the longest-serving Republican congressman in history.
No cause of death has yet been given. The congressman lost consciousness on a flight from Los Angeles to Seattle and could not be revived. His wife, Anne, was traveling with him.
Young was first elected to Alaska’s only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election in March 1973. Four months earlier, he had lost the regular election to Democrat Nick Begich, the incumbent congressman who had disappeared on a campaign flight but would not be declared dead until December.
From that inauspicious start, the Republican from Fort Yukon fashioned a career as Alaska’s winningest politician ever, gradually building the kind of seniority in Congress that became its own compelling argument for his reelection. Through five bruising decades of every-other-year electioneering, he bested a who’s who of Alaska Democrats, with only a couple of close calls. . .
That would be an unhelpful reaction. It doesn't help the EU or anyone else to not invite the UK PM to summits they otherwise intended to invite him to. All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed. I hope the EU are sensible enough not to act in such a petty manner.
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
Yes, that's the plan if they take Ukrainian cities.
Which is why I think most Ukrainian troops will fight to the bitter end over the last fragments of ruins.
I guess it will make the cities easier to hold, if the inhabitants are dispersed among the further reaches of the Russian Empire.
I cannot recall feeling as angry at a person as I have felt over the last several weeks about Putin.
Brown's comments about a Nuremberg style trial feel suddenly very appropriate. More appropriate than they already did. This is ethnic cleansing.
That would be an unhelpful reaction. It doesn't help the EU or anyone else to not invite the UK PM to summits they otherwise intended to invite him to. All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed. I hope the EU are sensible enough not to act in such a petty manner.
BBC have finally reported Johnson's remarks. Apparently it's offended Ed Davey, Gavin Barwell and Donald Tusk . And that is a bad thing how?
Nifty switching the question from, "Did Boris Johnson say something he should NOT have said, on general principles"? to, "Did Boris Johnson say something to offend people who deserve to be offended (IMHO)?"
That would be an unhelpful reaction. It doesn't help the EU or anyone else to not invite the UK PM to summits they otherwise intended to invite him to. All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed. I hope the EU are sensible enough not to act in such a petty manner.
BBC have finally reported Johnson's remarks. Apparently it's offended Ed Davey, Gavin Barwell and Donald Tusk . And that is a bad thing how?
Nifty switching the question from, "Did Boris Johnson say something he should NOT have said, on general principles"? to, "Did Boris Johnson say something to offend people who deserve to be offended (IMHO)?"
Sophistry 101.
It's working on me sadly. I thought the comments were exceedingly asinine, but so help me I'm enjoying the list of po-faced pricks who've taken umbrage.
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
In some ways, not unlike what you do on here, with your endless reposting of twitter. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, knock yourself out.
If the average Tory MP wasn't a spineless moron Boris could have been given the boot months ago. Then we could have had someone half competent during this crisis, instead we are saddled with this ignorant lazy dishonest fat oaf. His latest crass comments are simply another example of why he needs to go ASAP.
BBC have finally reported Johnson's remarks. Apparently it's offended Ed Davey, Gavin Barwell and Donald Tusk . And that is a bad thing how?
Nifty switching the question from, "Did Boris Johnson say something he should NOT have said, on general principles"? to, "Did Boris Johnson say something to offend people who deserve to be offended (IMHO)?"
Sophistry 101.
It's working on me sadly. I thought the comments were exceedingly asinine, but so help me I'm enjoying the list of po-faced pricks who've taken umbrage.
It's one thing to just not think his comments were that bad. I disagree but each to their own. But people too often fall into the trap of supporting something simply because it upsets the 'right people', and that's a poor path to go down. Clearly there will be the regular critics, who get equally outraged by anything he says, but it's not just the usual suspects.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Ditto. Although this was a late night Deliveroo order from a petrol station. But you would hope a supermarket had procedures, and training. Perhaps to a non-drinking employee even white and red are just wine.
I ordered an aubergine from Waitrose. They substituted snap peas. Anyone ever tried to make moussaka with snap peas?
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Sounds like some kind of corporate algorithm thing then.
BBC have finally reported Johnson's remarks. Apparently it's offended Ed Davey, Gavin Barwell and Donald Tusk . And that is a bad thing how?
They should offend everyone . Utterly disgraceful comments to make by Johnson.
People say shit all the time. Tories are scum. Subsequently apologised, a considerable time later. I’m guessing Johnson won’t apologise, but will attempt to obfuscate. Sooner he is not our pm the better, but sadly the tide has not yet gone out.
To me everything has changed and how each party faces the huge problems going forward will decide GE24
I do expect problems for labour and the SNP if they object to the development of oil and gas fields within the UK as we becoming self sufficient in the transition to net zero and stop importing energy, not just from Russia but elsewhere when we can provide it ourselves and with high paid UK jobs
Net Zero is one thing - being self-sufficient in energy is another. We can ramp up oil and gas production but that won't make us net zero - investing more in renewables seems the obvious way forward and it wasn't that long ago we had 0% of our energy derived from coal on some days.
The other side of the equation is how much energy we use and whether a few simple measures could reduce our energy consumption but that will depend on the degree to which we are prepared to change (or compromise) our lifestyle to reduce energy consumption. That's going to be the harder sell.
It is a balance but it is a 20 year transition
I would recommend that HMG makes energy efficiency in homes a statutory requirement with a minimum rating of C required on the sale of property, thereby making improving energy efficiency a real positive but also that house sales will need to reflect in negotiations the costs and no doubt the owner reducing the price or the buyer greeing to make the investment
I understand some mortgages are available at at lower interest rates already for energy efficient homes
The cost according to X rebellion is one trillion to insulate all our homes and that is not possible from the government purse
It won't cost anything like a trillion. XR are dickheads.
How much do you think it will cost for every home in the UK
Let's assume there are 20 million homes in the UK. That's probably not too far from the truth.
Now, at the one end you'll have 100 year old homes that have never had any insulation and leak heat like a sieve. On the other, you'll have modern apartment complexes with double or triple glazing, which will require nothing.
Let's also not forget that the 80:20 rule applies here. You can achieve an awful lot pretty easily - you don't need to do *everything*, you can do the most cost effective things (such as roof insulation) pretty easily and cheaply.
So, I'd say you can do an awful lot with just 20 billion.
The easiest thing to do is to make sure that you have the highest standards in new builds, but every time a government proposes doing such a thing, the building industry sucks it collective teeth and mutters darkly about the government's house-building targets, and the standards are watered down, and implementation is delayed.
I think that's right: progressively tighten new building regulations. One can also mandate further efficiency standards for domestic appliances, heating and lighting.
Personally, I would not prohibit gas boilers, but that's just me.
That would be an unhelpful reaction. It doesn't help the EU or anyone else to not invite the UK PM to summits they otherwise intended to invite him to. All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed. I hope the EU are sensible enough not to act in such a petty manner.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
A passable Languedoc-Roussillon.
Chateau Ormes de Pez 2010, a half bottle to go with the excellent cote de boeuf I've cooked for myself, since my wife has (temporarily, I trust!) left me by myself in the hope of not catching the Covid which I picked up at a dinner last week.
Oh dear!
One thing about Omicron is that it doesn't seem to clobber taste and smell as much.
Well I've totally lost mine. It's weird. I do hope it's only temporary.
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Yes, and even HYUFD thinks he shouldn't have said it.
The situation is not improved by others acting the same. We learn as children two wrongs don't make a right.
To be controversial:
Mount Snowdon and Everest are both mountains. No one would deny that Everest is bigger and more significant than Snowdon.
Brexit and Ukraine’s defence against Russian invasion are both examples of sovereign states choosing a path: both examples of freedom. No one would deny that Ukraine is far more significant a defence of freedom than Brexit
If the average Tory MP wasn't a spineless moron Boris could have been given the boot months ago. Then we could have had someone half competent during this crisis, instead we are saddled with this ignorant lazy dishonest fat oaf. His latest crass comments are simply another example of why he needs to go ASAP.
Independent is concentrating on front page on Johnson's comments about not accommodating with tyranny and no way back for Mad Vlad.
And he's offended some of the usual suspects on PB. People who wouldn't vote for him in a million years. Again is that a bad thing? Much more interesting was the reaction of the Ukrainian ambassador who appeared to enjoy the speech he gave very much as did those who were listening to him in the auditorium.
To me everything has changed and how each party faces the huge problems going forward will decide GE24
I do expect problems for labour and the SNP if they object to the development of oil and gas fields within the UK as we becoming self sufficient in the transition to net zero and stop importing energy, not just from Russia but elsewhere when we can provide it ourselves and with high paid UK jobs
Net Zero is one thing - being self-sufficient in energy is another. We can ramp up oil and gas production but that won't make us net zero - investing more in renewables seems the obvious way forward and it wasn't that long ago we had 0% of our energy derived from coal on some days.
The other side of the equation is how much energy we use and whether a few simple measures could reduce our energy consumption but that will depend on the degree to which we are prepared to change (or compromise) our lifestyle to reduce energy consumption. That's going to be the harder sell.
It is a balance but it is a 20 year transition
I would recommend that HMG makes energy efficiency in homes a statutory requirement with a minimum rating of C required on the sale of property, thereby making improving energy efficiency a real positive but also that house sales will need to reflect in negotiations the costs and no doubt the owner reducing the price or the buyer greeing to make the investment
I understand some mortgages are available at at lower interest rates already for energy efficient homes
The cost according to X rebellion is one trillion to insulate all our homes and that is not possible from the government purse
It won't cost anything like a trillion. XR are dickheads.
How much do you think it will cost for every home in the UK
Let's assume there are 20 million homes in the UK. That's probably not too far from the truth.
Now, at the one end you'll have 100 year old homes that have never had any insulation and leak heat like a sieve. On the other, you'll have modern apartment complexes with double or triple glazing, which will require nothing.
Let's also not forget that the 80:20 rule applies here. You can achieve an awful lot pretty easily - you don't need to do *everything*, you can do the most cost effective things (such as roof insulation) pretty easily and cheaply.
So, I'd say you can do an awful lot with just 20 billion.
The easiest thing to do is to make sure that you have the highest standards in new builds, but every time a government proposes doing such a thing, the building industry sucks it collective teeth and mutters darkly about the government's house-building targets, and the standards are watered down, and implementation is delayed.
That’s true. Developers can also water down the environmental standards of new builds by arguing that they’re not ‘viable’.
An interesting stat is that 80% of the housing stock that will exist in 2050 is already built. Improving the thermal efficiency of the old stock is a mammoth task.
It’s estimated that to bring the housing stock in Leeds alone to zero carbon (admittedly a very ambitious target) will be somewhere north of £5bn. Current government funding is targeted at social housing. Where the money will come from to help meet the cost for the private rented and owner occupiers is currently unknown.
It’s a bit of a mess really. I’m all for zero carbon and I hope renewable energy generation comes on leaps and bounds as technology improves. But we might have to rely on fossil for some time yet, as unpalatable as that may be for some. And we have to figure out how to make old housing massively more thermal efficient and decide how we’re going to pay for it.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
A passable Languedoc-Roussillon.
Chateau Ormes de Pez 2010, a half bottle to go with the excellent cote de boeuf I've cooked for myself, since my wife has (temporarily, I trust!) left me by myself in the hope of not catching the Covid which I picked up at a dinner last week.
Oh dear!
One thing about Omicron is that it doesn't seem to clobber taste and smell as much.
Well I've totally lost mine. It's weird. I do hope it's only temporary.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
A passable Languedoc-Roussillon.
Chateau Ormes de Pez 2010, a half bottle to go with the excellent cote de boeuf I've cooked for myself, since my wife has (temporarily, I trust!) left me by myself in the hope of not catching the Covid which I picked up at a dinner last week.
Oh dear!
One thing about Omicron is that it doesn't seem to clobber taste and smell as much.
Well I've totally lost mine. It's weird. I do hope it's only temporary.
I know two who have. Is it a feature of the new varient of omicron?
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Yes, and even HYUFD thinks he shouldn't have said it.
The situation is not improved by others acting the same. We learn as children two wrongs don't make a right.
To be controversial:
Mount Snowden’s and Everest are both mountains. No one would deny that Everest is bigger and more significant than Snowdon.
Brexit and Ukraine’s defence against Russian invasion are both examples of sovereign states choosing a path: both examples of freedom. No one would deny that Ukraine is far more significant a defence of freedom than Brexit
Make a comparison broad enough and we could compare anything, but it would lose particular relevance as a point.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
A passable Languedoc-Roussillon.
Chateau Ormes de Pez 2010, a half bottle to go with the excellent cote de boeuf I've cooked for myself, since my wife has (temporarily, I trust!) left me by myself in the hope of not catching the Covid which I picked up at a dinner last week.
Oh dear!
One thing about Omicron is that it doesn't seem to clobber taste and smell as much.
Well I've totally lost mine. It's weird. I do hope it's only temporary.
And he's offended some of the usual suspects on PB. People who wouldn't vote for him in a million years. Again is that a bad thing? Much more interesting was the reaction of the Ukrainian ambassador who appeared to enjoy the speech he gave very much as did those who were listening to him in the auditorium.
What's the Ukraine Ambassador to UK supposed to do, start booing? Give me a break!
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Everybody?
Probably not everybody. But even a slice of Brexit backers have come out against what he said. Our colleague @HYUFD1 for one, or this from Julia Hartley-Brewer;
Even as a staunch Brexiteer, this is totally cringe from @BorisJohnson. Comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives against a foreign invader is an insult to their bravery and sacrifice.
Put it this way. Do you think that Ukrainians hearing Boris's remarks will think more or less of him as a result?
But that's the thing about Boris. Nearly everybody likes the idea of Boris, and nearly everybody likes him on first encounter. The dislike always comes later.
Boris was silly in his comment but as ever the whole speech was worth listening to and really did give an insight into how he intends fighting the next GE, if indeed he does
With respect there is a degree of hyperbole here from the usual suspects and for some to suggest he should be sidelined in essential defence and security meetings in the EU is absurd and an absolute gift to Putin
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Everybody?
Probably not everybody. But even a slice of Brexit backers have come out against what he said. Our colleague @HYUFD1 for one, or this from Julia Hartley-Brewer;
Even as a staunch Brexiteer, this is totally cringe from @BorisJohnson. Comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives against a foreign invader is an insult to their bravery and sacrifice.
Put it this way. Do you think that Ukrainians hearing Boris's remarks will think more or less of him as a result?
But that's the thing about Boris. Nearly everybody likes the idea of Boris, and nearly everybody likes him on first encounter. The dislike always comes later.
I imagine Ukrainians would focus on the big picture in terms of practical and diplomatic support, and are very happy with that and so not inclined to quibble around stupid comments. None of which speaks to them being a good choice to say.
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Yes, and even HYUFD thinks he shouldn't have said it.
The situation is not improved by others acting the same. We learn as children two wrongs don't make a right.
To be controversial:
Mount Snowdon and Everest are both mountains. No one would deny that Everest is bigger and more significant than Snowdon.
Brexit and Ukraine’s defence against Russian invasion are both examples of sovereign states choosing a path: both examples of freedom. No one would deny that Ukraine is far more significant a defence of freedom than Brexit
The interesting thing about the objections to the comments is that they've been "insulting", "inappropriate", "offensive" etc.
But few people have been arguing that they are wrong.
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Yes, and even HYUFD thinks he shouldn't have said it.
The situation is not improved by others acting the same. We learn as children two wrongs don't make a right.
To be controversial:
Mount Snowden’s and Everest are both mountains. No one would deny that Everest is bigger and more significant than Snowdon.
Brexit and Ukraine’s defence against Russian invasion are both examples of sovereign states choosing a path: both examples of freedom. No one would deny that Ukraine is far more significant a defence of freedom than Brexit
Make a comparison broad enough and we could compare anything, but it would lose particular relevance as a point.
In the Brexit vote the UK decided it didn’t want to be part of the EU.
Ukraine has made its views on being incorporated into Russia abundantly clear.
They are both examples of the same desire for independence.
It’s a relevant comparison but it is certainly not saying they are equivalent, just that they are part of the same category
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Everybody?
Probably not everybody. But even a slice of Brexit backers have come out against what he said. Our colleague @HYUFD1 for one, or this from Julia Hartley-Brewer;
Even as a staunch Brexiteer, this is totally cringe from @BorisJohnson. Comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives against a foreign invader is an insult to their bravery and sacrifice.
Put it this way. Do you think that Ukrainians hearing Boris's remarks will think more or less of him as a result?
But that's the thing about Boris. Nearly everybody likes the idea of Boris, and nearly everybody likes him on first encounter. The dislike always comes later.
\ Somehow doubt Brexit is at forefront of most Ukrainians' thoughts at present. Or ever.
And he's offended some of the usual suspects on PB. People who wouldn't vote for him in a million years. Again is that a bad thing? Much more interesting was the reaction of the Ukrainian ambassador who appeared to enjoy the speech he gave very much as did those who were listening to him in the auditorium.
The Ukrainian ambassador is unlikely to be disapproving is he? They need all the help they can get. And as for the people in the room. I presume it was Tory activists. Hardly reflective of the broader public.
Anyway we'll hopefully get some polling on the matter to determine what the public think. My guess is remainers will be united in thinking the comments are crass and offensive and leavers will be divided, with some supportive and others not. So the majority will be anti Boris.
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Everybody?
Probably not everybody. But even a slice of Brexit backers have come out against what he said. Our colleague @HYUFD1 for one, or this from Julia Hartley-Brewer;
Even as a staunch Brexiteer, this is totally cringe from @BorisJohnson. Comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives against a foreign invader is an insult to their bravery and sacrifice.
Put it this way. Do you think that Ukrainians hearing Boris's remarks will think more or less of him as a result?
But that's the thing about Boris. Nearly everybody likes the idea of Boris, and nearly everybody likes him on first encounter. The dislike always comes later.
\ Somehow doubt Brexit is at forefront of most Ukrainians' thoughts at present. Or ever.
They are literally asking the EU to throw out decades of accession policy to admit them.
@guyverhofstadt As a former British diplomat, I feel deeply ashamed by our PM. All EU foreign ministries should call in British Ambassadors and ask them to explain Johnson’s remarks, which are grossly offensive to Ukrainians and the EU. https://twitter.com/alexhallhall/status/1505242246689525765
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Everybody?
Probably not everybody. But even a slice of Brexit backers have come out against what he said. Our colleague @HYUFD1 for one, or this from Julia Hartley-Brewer;
Even as a staunch Brexiteer, this is totally cringe from @BorisJohnson. Comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives against a foreign invader is an insult to their bravery and sacrifice.
Put it this way. Do you think that Ukrainians hearing Boris's remarks will think more or less of him as a result?
But that's the thing about Boris. Nearly everybody likes the idea of Boris, and nearly everybody likes him on first encounter. The dislike always comes later.
\ Somehow doubt Brexit is at forefront of most Ukrainians' thoughts at present. Or ever.
They are literally asking the EU to throw out decades of accession policy to admit them.
They want to anchor their western orientation and escape from Russian domination. They're not pining for the acquis communautaire.
And he's offended some of the usual suspects on PB. People who wouldn't vote for him in a million years. Again is that a bad thing? Much more interesting was the reaction of the Ukrainian ambassador who appeared to enjoy the speech he gave very much as did those who were listening to him in the auditorium.
The Ukrainian ambassador is unlikely to be disapproving is he? They need all the help they can get. And as for the people in the room. I presume it was Tory activists. Hardly reflective of the broader public.
Anyway we'll hopefully get some polling on the matter to determine what the public think. My guess is remainers will be united in thinking the comments are crass and offensive and leavers will be divided, with some supportive and others not. So the majority will be anti Boris.
Johnson is doing this because he thinks it will win him more time in power. I would love him to be wrong, but he is actually in power and probably knows what he's doing.
All it would achieve is momentary satisfaction, at the cost of cooperation at a time when cooperation is needed.
That's what BoZo did
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Everybody?
Probably not everybody. But even a slice of Brexit backers have come out against what he said. Our colleague @HYUFD1 for one, or this from Julia Hartley-Brewer;
Even as a staunch Brexiteer, this is totally cringe from @BorisJohnson. Comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives against a foreign invader is an insult to their bravery and sacrifice.
Put it this way. Do you think that Ukrainians hearing Boris's remarks will think more or less of him as a result?
But that's the thing about Boris. Nearly everybody likes the idea of Boris, and nearly everybody likes him on first encounter. The dislike always comes later.
\ Somehow doubt Brexit is at forefront of most Ukrainians' thoughts at present. Or ever.
They are literally asking the EU to throw out decades of accession policy to admit them.
They want to anchor their western orientation and escape from Russian domination. They're not pining for the acquis communautaire.
Says you. Then again, Boris does appeal to Britain who think they should tell the rest of the world what they should do.
Comments
Such are the vicissitudes of fate.
"Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals who have proposed, begun or completed reassignment of gender enjoy legal protection against discrimination. A trans person does not need to have had, or be planning, any medical gender reassignment treatment to be protected under the Equality Act: it is enough if they are undergoing a personal process of changing gender. In addition, good practice requires that clinical responses be patient-centred, respectful and flexible towards all transgender people whether they live continuously or temporarily in a gender role that does not conform to their natal sex. General key points are that:
• Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use.
• This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia...
Those who have undergone transition should be accommodated according to their gender presentation. Different genital or breast sex appearance is not a bar to this, since sufficient privacy can usually be ensured through the use of curtains or by accommodation in a single side room adjacent to a gender appropriate ward."
"make sure that if you have to stay in hospital, you do not sleep in the same room with people of the opposite sex, except in very rare circumstances (for example, emergencies)."
Personally, I think of such documents rather like corporate mission statements. Bland generalities to be ignored.
Nothing that is happening there is remotely comparable with the EU or Brexit.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1505258123434639360?t=zzTfQFzOZRZ-oefZj6-wmQ&s=19
⚡️Mariupol council: Russian occupiers forcibly move thousands of Mariupol residents to Russia.
The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russians checked their phones and documents and then forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1504792638817452039?t=BLQkN9Nmm16u_HGfvDGY0g&s=19
There are a lot of homes where it's easy to improve the insulation, add solar panels and whatnot, and as a society we can start with the easy ones. Meanwhile, get the boffins to work out what can be done with listed buildings.
Pick the low-hanging fruit first.
Freaks.
The Home Nations all have at least one ot two who don't know what to do other than look for contact.
....I hope we will be saying
Surely not.
Even in Lancashire we draw lines.
Which is why I think most Ukrainian troops will fight to the bitter end over the last fragments of ruins.
That was my thinking too.
Remember the "EUSSR" memes?
At least some people took them seriously.
What's there to lose?
And this reduces freedoms and rights which women had for good reason and which they continue to need and will need far into the future.
I find it deeply infuriating that even women in prisons cannot be assured of being safe from rape. Why do you think Elizabeth Fry argued for womens' prisons in the early 19th century - to protect women from sexual exploitation. And now we're permitting it? Under the guise of human rights?? Give me a fucking break. Males with gender dysphoria who still retain male bodies who need to be imprisoned can be made safe in special separate transgender units so that they are not at risk. But not at the expense of women. Women are not the shock absorbers for the male ego.
We get lots of talk about VAWG but when it comes to doing anything about it, the square root of fuck all is done if it interferes even in the slightest with what some men want.
Enough.
'Something I've noticed over the past week or so here: almost every Ukrainian I spoke to has made it clear that they blame not only Putin, but the average Russian as much (or more) for this war. The view is: we overthrew our corrupt government, and they accept their murderous one'
This is interesting and may help to understand the chasm that has opened up in that part of the world.
1. He genuinely believes it. Given the two articles thing, this is unlikely, but many people have been sent more than a little loopy by the last six years, so perhaps he has come to believe it after the event.
2. It's just a simple attempt to associate current popular thing (Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression) to thing that is indelibly associated with him (Brexit), in the hope of a simple transitive relationship, and thereby marginally increase his popularity.
3. It's part of his strategy to keep provoking 2010s Remainers into outbursts of outrage, to distract them from opposing him on specific grounds that might win over some Leavers, instead of in a way that simply refights the referendum argument all over again.
So while he wants to occupy it he does not want to eliminate the population but absorb as much of it as he can back into Russia
Uncle Vova really is Uncle Soso, redux.
3.miles at most.
I cannot recall feeling as angry at a person as I have felt over the last several weeks about Putin.
https://www.adn.com/politics/2022/03/19/gruff-warm-combustible-shrewd-for-49-years-don-youngs-ideology-was-alaska/
Don Young, the irascible riverboat captain who did not so much represent Alaska as personify it for half a century in Congress, died Friday as he was flying home to Alaska for yet another political campaign.
Young was 88, the oldest and longest-serving member of the current Congress. In serving the 49th state for 49 years, he had become the longest-serving Republican congressman in history.
No cause of death has yet been given. The congressman lost consciousness on a flight from Los Angeles to Seattle and could not be revived. His wife, Anne, was traveling with him.
Young was first elected to Alaska’s only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election in March 1973. Four months earlier, he had lost the regular election to Democrat Nick Begich, the incumbent congressman who had disappeared on a campaign flight but would not be declared dead until December.
From that inauspicious start, the Republican from Fort Yukon fashioned a career as Alaska’s winningest politician ever, gradually building the kind of seniority in Congress that became its own compelling argument for his reelection. Through five bruising decades of every-other-year electioneering, he bested a who’s who of Alaska Democrats, with only a couple of close calls. . .
He pissed off everybody to make himself feel better.
Twat.
Comparing the Ukrainian people's fight against Putin's tyranny to the British people voting for Brexit damages the standard of statecraft we were beginning to exhibit.
https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1505292239714586627
The situation is not improved by others acting the same. We learn as children two wrongs don't make a right.
Sophistry 101.
Hopefully. I live in hope.
Labour trying to ‘open floodgates’ for Russian political donations, claims Boris Johnson
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/19/labour-trying-open-floodgates-russian-political-donations-claims/ (£££)
Sooner he is not our pm the better, but sadly the tide has not yet gone out.
Personally, I would not prohibit gas boilers, but that's just me.
Two wrongs do not make a right
Mount Snowdon and Everest are both mountains. No one would deny that Everest is bigger and more significant than Snowdon.
Brexit and Ukraine’s defence against Russian invasion are both examples of sovereign states choosing a path: both examples of freedom. No one would deny that Ukraine is far more significant a defence of freedom than Brexit
Much more interesting was the reaction of the Ukrainian ambassador who appeared to enjoy the speech he gave very much as did those who were listening to him in the auditorium.
An interesting stat is that 80% of the housing stock that will exist in 2050 is already built. Improving the thermal efficiency of the old stock is a mammoth task.
It’s estimated that to bring the housing stock in Leeds alone to zero carbon (admittedly a very ambitious target) will be somewhere north of £5bn. Current government funding is targeted at social housing. Where the money will come from to help meet the cost for the private rented and owner occupiers is currently unknown.
It’s a bit of a mess really. I’m all for zero carbon and I hope renewable energy generation comes on leaps and bounds as technology improves. But we might have to rely on fossil for some time yet, as unpalatable as that may be for some. And we have to figure out how to make old housing massively more thermal efficient and decide how we’re going to pay for it.
Is it a feature of the new varient of omicron?
Even as a staunch Brexiteer, this is totally cringe from @BorisJohnson. Comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives against a foreign invader is an insult to their bravery and sacrifice.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1505199026446163971?s=20&t=qMMXhspNg4J_AB4wXCd2dw
Put it this way. Do you think that Ukrainians hearing Boris's remarks will think more or less of him as a result?
But that's the thing about Boris. Nearly everybody likes the idea of Boris, and nearly everybody likes him on first encounter. The dislike always comes later.
With respect there is a degree of hyperbole here from the usual suspects and for some to suggest he should be sidelined in essential defence and security meetings in the EU is absurd and an absolute gift to Putin
But few people have been arguing that they are wrong.
Ukraine has made its views on being incorporated into Russia abundantly clear.
They are both examples of the same desire for independence.
It’s a relevant comparison but it is certainly not saying they are equivalent, just that they are part of the same category
Somehow doubt Brexit is at forefront of most Ukrainians' thoughts at present. Or ever.
Anyway we'll hopefully get some polling on the matter to determine what the public think. My guess is remainers will be united in thinking the comments are crass and offensive and leavers will be divided, with some supportive and others not. So the majority will be anti Boris.
Sunday TIMES: “Ukraine battle is like Brexit, PM tells party” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1505310100373835776/photo/1
https://twitter.com/alexhallhall/status/1505242246689525765