Howdy, Stranger!

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

Minding Our Manners – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    ping said:

    Wholesale gas up another 12.8% today.

    Sept delivery 477p/therm (16.3p/kWh)

    Dec delivery 613p/therm (20.9p/kWh)

    Surely we’re at a price level that guarantees some level of demand destruction?

    https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5253323

    In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.

    I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.

    We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
    That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?

    Not nice
    It does, and it won’t be.

    It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.

    However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
    I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
    Even if they surrender to Putin, does anyone think he’d follow through on his empty promises to turn the gas taps on?
    Yes, because Putin will want to reward countries that submit, pour encourager Les Autres
    And because gas going west means money going east. If the money is turned off for too long then the oligarch familiya will roll Vovka.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,811
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    Scott Morrison continues his sterling effort to usurp John Kerr's place as the most unpopular Australian politician of all time.
    Rubbish, he won the 2019 Australian election and his coalition still came top on first preferences even in the last election, only losing on 2PP.

    His 'crime' is supposedly to have taken over part of the role of some other Cabinet posts during the Covid pandemic, overwork if anything. Which was not only legal but also a total non story as far as I am concerned
    HYUFD - I'm in Australia and believe me this IS a big story.

    His former Home Affairs minister who was always a loyalist has said he should resign from the parliament.
    It is a big story because Albanese is making it so, as Opposition leader Peter Dutton correctly states Albanese should be focused on "bigger issues Australian families are dealing with". Pathetic from the Labor government.

    His Home Affairs Minister obviously wasn't doing her job properly enough hence Morrison had to intervene but there was nothing illegal in what he did during the Covid crisis
    He didn't just do this with home affairs, he did it with Finance and didn't tell his finance minister (who's now the head of the OECD), and he did it with Treasury without telling the Treasurer who he was living with during the covid crisis.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    3 things that make us most proud to be British according to Mori

    1 The NHS
    2 Our history
    3 The Royal family

    https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1559497777952051210?s=20&t=KIvuzJKzEyEWfVU2BAKhfg

    It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
    The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.

    Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
    Multiple other countries have similar systems, even down to being called “national health service”: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/why-has-the-nhs-not-been-copied-spoiler-it-has
    So they are the same except for all the ways in which they are different.

    One of the main ways in which they are different of course is that they are so much better than our system at the basic things like keeping people alive and making them better. Something the NHS seems to be particularly poor at compared with its peers.
    They are not absolutely identical, but they are very similar.

    The idea that the NHS is “particularly poor” is dubious. Even the IFS thinks the NHS is average: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/HEAJ6319-How-good-is-the-NHS-180625-WEB.pdf This US think tank (don’t be confused by the name) thinks the NHS is among the best among its peers: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2017_jul_pdf_schneider_mirror_mirror_exhibits.pdf
    Oh I am so glad you decided to quote the Commonwealth Fund report. It has been a source of much fun on here before.

    If you actually bothered to read it rather than just looking at the spin others put on it you would see that the NHS is a world leader on keeping records, telling people how long waiting lists are and counting paperclips. It is also very good at knowing how many drugs it has in the cupboard.

    Sadly when it comes to 'Health Care Outcomes' - keeping people alive, making them better when they are ill etc - the NHS ranks as 10th out of the 11 countries included in the report. The only one that is worse is the USA - which was kind of the point of the whole report.
  • Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    ping said:

    Wholesale gas up another 12.8% today.

    Sept delivery 477p/therm (16.3p/kWh)

    Dec delivery 613p/therm (20.9p/kWh)

    Surely we’re at a price level that guarantees some level of demand destruction?

    https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5253323

    In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.

    I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.

    We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
    That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?

    Not nice
    It does, and it won’t be.

    It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.

    However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
    I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
    How will they surrender though?

    France and Germany already have surrendered, a few times, yet the war wages on. They can wave the white flag as often as they like, its not in their hands to end the war.

    If a 'coalition of the willing' continues to support Ukraine to defend their homeland as has been happening for the past few months then Putin won't win.

    The UK didn't sell its soul to Russia so we have no need to surrender.
    Eastern European states are far more concerned about the risk of them being next than they are about the fate of Nordstream which they don't even benefit from, so count them out too.
    The USA thankfully isn't led by Trump and so long as Ukraine, the UK, Eastern Europe etc remain on side then winning this war is Biden's best hope of a successful legacy and maybe even re-election. Defeat Russia and Biden's place in the history books is secure even if he only serves on term.

    France and Germany are willing to surrender, but Putin's problem is they're impotent and so is the EU. Its NATO and the nations willing to work with Ukraine that matters.
  • pingping Posts: 2,659
    edited August 16
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,692
    edited August 16

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    3 things that make us most proud to be British according to Mori

    1 The NHS
    2 Our history
    3 The Royal family

    https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1559497777952051210?s=20&t=KIvuzJKzEyEWfVU2BAKhfg

    It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
    The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.

    Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
    Multiple other countries have similar systems, even down to being called “national health service”: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/why-has-the-nhs-not-been-copied-spoiler-it-has
    So they are the same except for all the ways in which they are different.

    One of the main ways in which they are different of course is that they are so much better than our system at the basic things like keeping people alive and making them better. Something the NHS seems to be particularly poor at compared with its peers.
    They are not absolutely identical, but they are very similar.

    The idea that the NHS is “particularly poor” is dubious. Even the IFS thinks the NHS is average: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/HEAJ6319-How-good-is-the-NHS-180625-WEB.pdf This US think tank (don’t be confused by the name) thinks the NHS is among the best among its peers: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2017_jul_pdf_schneider_mirror_mirror_exhibits.pdf
    Not at providing healthcare: if you look at Exhibit 2, on Health Care Outcomes, we are 10/11, with only the indefensible American system worse.

    We rank 1 on Equity, which means we get equally crap health care, so it's a classically socialist institution.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited August 16
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


    Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.

    6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
    Government advice from the 1970s:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6U9T3R3EQg

    Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.

    As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!

    Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.

    Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.

    But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.

    Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
    Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
    It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
    Dynamo isn't Russian.

    How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.

    I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.

    The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
    I believe you and agree with you about pile ons, but could you have put it in a more prissy way? I can just imagine your histrionic (and oh so edgy and not at all performative) reaction if someone else pulled a 'I am an expert in X and I can tell just by looking at Y what the truth is so just take my word for it' ploy.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 679

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?


    This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.

    Yikes.
    If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
    China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.

    Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
    But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
    Can we not or is it just deemed unacceptable by the current carbon orthodoxy ?
    Pretty sure we've got rid of all our oil power stations:

    https://gridwatch.co.uk/

    currently 0%.

    I mean we could build new ones, we 'could' build new coal mines and coal power stations too. But I expect it's a very very bad idea.
    Could some of our gas capacity be reenginnered to burn oil (ideally oil or gas as required)? Gas turbines shouldn't be particularly picky about the fuel they are fed providing it arrives into the combustion chambers via a suitable system to atomiser and mix appropriately.

    I suspect that the problem is that its technically feasible, but by the time people have done all the toolbox talks, risk assessments and planning meetings, and also summoned a hairy bloke called Dave to do the deed it will be about 2030.

    Rather annoyingly the country is littered with pocket powerstations with gas powered piston engines which were meant to function as peak loppers but in practice run for days if not months on end when the wind doesn't blow enough in winter. Most of them (certainly all the ones I've dealt with) use a big Cummins power unit as the prime mover, the bottom end of which is almost certainly common between the diesel and gas versions, but which would need different cylinder heads to carry diesel injectors.

    What might work with minimal modification would be fueling some of them on propane rather than natural gas - supply for propane doesn't seem to be nearly as tight. But again, any such proposals are probably going to spend far too long in meetings to have any hope of becoming a reality before the crisis hits.

    What used to be Ruston Gas Engines (now Simiens) in Lincoln do a very nice line in pocket gas turbine power stations - ~15MW from two HGV trailers parked back to back and bolted together, I think once set up one will come on load from completely off in two or three minutes. Alas I suspect their order book is sufficiently full we've not hope of obtaining any in time to be of any use.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    83% humidity in London. Ugh
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    Fine, and I am sure the families of those Jews would agree with you.
  • pingping Posts: 2,659
    edited August 16
    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735
    edited August 16

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    Scott Morrison continues his sterling effort to usurp John Kerr's place as the most unpopular Australian politician of all time.
    Rubbish, he won the 2019 Australian election and his coalition still came top on first preferences even in the last election, only losing on 2PP.

    His 'crime' is supposedly to have taken over part of the role of some other Cabinet posts during the Covid pandemic, overwork if anything. Which was not only legal but also a total non story as far as I am concerned
    HYUFD - I'm in Australia and believe me this IS a big story.

    His former Home Affairs minister who was always a loyalist has said he should resign from the parliament.
    It is a big story because Albanese is making it so, as Opposition leader Peter Dutton correctly states Albanese should be focused on "bigger issues Australian families are dealing with". Pathetic from the Labor government.

    His Home Affairs Minister obviously wasn't doing her job properly enough hence Morrison had to intervene but there was nothing illegal in what he did during the Covid crisis
    He didn't just do this with home affairs, he did it with Finance and didn't tell his finance minister (who's now the head of the OECD), and he did it with Treasury without telling the Treasurer who he was living with during the covid crisis.
    So what, he was Prime Minister, he is perfectly entitled during a crisis to intervene as much as he wishes to ensure his Cabinet are doing their job. Everything he did was legal
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    Fine, and I am sure the families of those Jews would agree with you.
    I am too. People who believe that 'provocateurs' are responsible for crimes rather than criminals are thankfully rare eccentric, contrarian cranks like you.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    ping said:

    Wholesale gas up another 12.8% today.

    Sept delivery 477p/therm (16.3p/kWh)

    Dec delivery 613p/therm (20.9p/kWh)

    Surely we’re at a price level that guarantees some level of demand destruction?

    https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5253323

    In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.

    I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.

    We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
    That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?

    Not nice
    It does, and it won’t be.

    It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.

    However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
    I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
    I have no doubt at all you are right.

    I expect it will be dressed up in such a way to make it appear they are not caving in for public consumption/face saving but political reality will win the day.

    Our politicians should have done more to prepare for this. They were working on this invasion and reacting to it well before it happened.

    Where it leaves Ukraine, or how it leaves Ukraine, remains to be seen but the Russians have played a long game here. The west has just bumbled along.
    I'm surprised a broad political consensus has lasted as long as it has among much of the West. More pain and no end in sight one would assume would fracture that at some point.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    What's the unit for the gas, and what is it converted back to kwh ?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    Fine, and I am sure the families of those Jews would agree with you.
    I am too. People who believe that 'provocateurs' are responsible for crimes rather than criminals are thankfully rare eccentric, contrarian cranks like you.
    Responsible for and causative of is a distinction which many adults are capable of making.

    You don't realise it, but you have committed yourself to saying She's in the attic in that 1940s Netherlands scenario.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,811
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
  • pingping Posts: 2,659
    Pulpstar said:

    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    What's the unit for the gas, and what is it converted back to kwh ?
    I assume it is kWh.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,811
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    Fine, and I am sure the families of those Jews would agree with you.
    I am too. People who believe that 'provocateurs' are responsible for crimes rather than criminals are thankfully rare eccentric, contrarian cranks like you.
    Responsible for and causative of is a distinction which many adults are capable of making.

    You don't realise it, but you have committed yourself to saying She's in the attic in that 1940s Netherlands scenario.
    Provocateurs are neither responsible for, nor causative of, any actions taken by criminals they provoked. Provocation is a part of life, a healthy and necessary part of it, and the provoked being unable to handle it properly is what causes any actions they then take.

    We should provoke the sensitive fools more often so they become better able to handle their emotions.

    PS No I didn't.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    ping said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    What's the unit for the gas, and what is it converted back to kwh ?
    I assume it is kWh.
    Good god.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    3 things that make us most proud to be British according to Mori

    1 The NHS
    2 Our history
    3 The Royal family

    https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1559497777952051210?s=20&t=KIvuzJKzEyEWfVU2BAKhfg

    It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
    The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.

    Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
    Multiple other countries have similar systems, even down to being called “national health service”: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/why-has-the-nhs-not-been-copied-spoiler-it-has
    So they are the same except for all the ways in which they are different.

    One of the main ways in which they are different of course is that they are so much better than our system at the basic things like keeping people alive and making them better. Something the NHS seems to be particularly poor at compared with its peers.
    They are not absolutely identical, but they are very similar.

    The idea that the NHS is “particularly poor” is dubious. Even the IFS thinks the NHS is average: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/HEAJ6319-How-good-is-the-NHS-180625-WEB.pdf This US think tank (don’t be confused by the name) thinks the NHS is among the best among its peers: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2017_jul_pdf_schneider_mirror_mirror_exhibits.pdf
    There are a wide range of studies, but they do generally come up with the quality of NHS being somewhere around average or a bit above, while it's generally near the top for value for money.

    It's one of those inconvenient truths for those in favour of privatisation - national level bargaining on e.g. pharmaceuticals does save a lot of money.

    A colleague in the department has led a number of cost effectiveness studies on various things. One he did on Labour's semi-privatisation (letting private companies run services within NHS hospitals, forget the proper name) showed that such services delivered better care. They also cost more and were marginally less cost effective (well, no different within statistical uncertainty, but point estimate a bit lower value for money).

    I don't really care deeply how health services are organised, as long as they are single payer. Other continental models are likely just as valid, but they'd have to actually be substantially better to justify the transition costs. There aren't really any shortcuts. If we want a better service, we'll need to pay more.
  • Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (15/08):

    LAB: 312 (+110) - 39.6%
    CON: 234 (-131) - 33.5%
    SNP: 51 (+3) - 4.0%
    LDM: 27 (+16) - 11.7%
    PLC: 5 (+1) - 0.8%
    GRN: 1 (=) - 5.8%
    RFM: 0 (=) - 2.9%
    Others: 1 (+1) - 1.7%

    LAB 14 Short.
    Changes w/ GE2019.

    @bigjohnowls let's get Corbs back, we can lose another 100 seats with him
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977
    edited August 16
    I wonder if we'll get a betting market on VVP's successor if the SMO does go spectacularly Tango Uniform.

    In theory it should be Sobyanin but he's not really a Russian being a Mansi and Russians are quite racist.
    Shoigu is Tuvan which is even worse than being Mansi.
    Kiriyenko is a good technocratic option with excellent connections to the familiya and his son runs VK. Ukrainian surname though.
    In the end I think they'd go back to the Russian Nick Clegg, Medvedev, as a safe pair of hands to steady the ship in what would be a period of extreme crisis for the Federation. On vam ne Dimon!
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,719

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
    Don't be bloody stupid. I am not clear what I am meant to be outraged about, but freedoms including freedom of speech and movement should in principle be protected. there are however edge cases where freedom of speech becomes freedom to troll, and its consequences become the murder of the innocent, and we should proceed a bit cautiously.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    I am with Scottish Power so just checked how it would affect us if we fixed

    We are currently on a 2 year fixed ending in December. Paying about 110 a month. Electric 16.69 p Primary Unit rate, Gas 2.91 p Primary Unit rate.

    They were quoting me just over £5,000 a year.

    A few weeks ago a fix was £3,500 a year.

    This is insane. We live in a modest 3 bed detached, insulated, two of us. Our use is modest.

    @Leon This, repeated across Europe this winter will bring about some sort of accomodation with Russia.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,220
    theProle said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?


    This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.

    Yikes.
    If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
    China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.

    Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
    But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
    Can we not or is it just deemed unacceptable by the current carbon orthodoxy ?
    Pretty sure we've got rid of all our oil power stations:

    https://gridwatch.co.uk/

    currently 0%.

    I mean we could build new ones, we 'could' build new coal mines and coal power stations too. But I expect it's a very very bad idea.
    Could some of our gas capacity be reenginnered to burn oil (ideally oil or gas as required)? Gas turbines shouldn't be particularly picky about the fuel they are fed providing it arrives into the combustion chambers via a suitable system to atomiser and mix appropriately.

    I suspect that the problem is that its technically feasible, but by the time people have done all the toolbox talks, risk assessments and planning meetings, and also summoned a hairy bloke called Dave to do the deed it will be about 2030.

    Rather annoyingly the country is littered with pocket powerstations with gas powered piston engines which were meant to function as peak loppers but in practice run for days if not months on end when the wind doesn't blow enough in winter. Most of them (certainly all the ones I've dealt with) use a big Cummins power unit as the prime mover, the bottom end of which is almost certainly common between the diesel and gas versions, but which would need different cylinder heads to carry diesel injectors.

    What might work with minimal modification would be fueling some of them on propane rather than natural gas - supply for propane doesn't seem to be nearly as tight. But again, any such proposals are probably going to spend far too long in meetings to have any hope of becoming a reality before the crisis hits.

    What used to be Ruston Gas Engines (now Simiens) in Lincoln do a very nice line in pocket gas turbine power stations - ~15MW from two HGV trailers parked back to back and bolted together, I think once set up one will come on load from completely off in two or three minutes. Alas I suspect their order book is sufficiently full we've not hope of obtaining any in time to be of any use.
    Certainly the old Derwent cogeneration Station (now decommissioned) near Derby could be made to run off oil very quickly - though gas normally. I'm unsure if it ever burnt oil in anger.

    (Post written from the superb tank museum, which reeks wonderfully of oil in places.)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    Fine, and I am sure the families of those Jews would agree with you.
    I am too. People who believe that 'provocateurs' are responsible for crimes rather than criminals are thankfully rare eccentric, contrarian cranks like you.
    Responsible for and causative of is a distinction which many adults are capable of making.

    You don't realise it, but you have committed yourself to saying She's in the attic in that 1940s Netherlands scenario.
    Provocateurs are neither responsible for, nor causative of, any actions taken by criminals they provoked. Provocation is a part of life, a healthy and necessary part of it, and the provoked being unable to handle it properly is what causes any actions they then take.

    We should provoke the sensitive fools more often so they become better able to handle their emotions.

    PS No I didn't.
    Sure, and it is cost free to you. So that's fine. Glad we sorted that.

    You did. Answering the question truthfully is just exercising freedom of speech, and the consequences are none of your business, it's all those nasty germans. So what is your objection to answering truthfully?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    "Kenya election 2022: Raila Odinga rejects Kenya president election results"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-62559899
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172
    Andy_JS said:

    "Kenya election 2022: Raila Odinga rejects Kenya president election results"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-62559899

    Oh shit. Kenyan election riots are no fun. Trust me on this.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    edited August 16
    Taz said:

    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    I am with Scottish Power so just checked how it would affect us if we fixed

    We are currently on a 2 year fixed ending in December. Paying about 110 a month. Electric 16.69 p Primary Unit rate, Gas 2.91 p Primary Unit rate.

    They were quoting me just over £5,000 a year.

    A few weeks ago a fix was £3,500 a year.

    This is insane. We live in a modest 3 bed detached, insulated, two of us. Our use is modest.

    @Leon This, repeated across Europe this winter will bring about some sort of accomodation with Russia.
    I doubt anyone will be fixing in 2023, surely everyone is just going to go variable and pray the cap drops ?

    The thing is every fix agreed to by the energy middlemen is costing them a packet as the wholesale price goes up , so they'll have to continually overestimate future fixes. Bit annoyed I didn't get a 3 yr fix till Oct 24 now but oh well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    No it isn't, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has brushed off the issue and said Labor should be focusing on the day job, former Liberal PM John Howard has said Morrison should not resign. Turnbull and his ally the former Treasurer Frydenberg may have lambasted Morrison but they are on the other wing of the party and his former Home Minister if she was doing her job properly should have had no concerns about being checked up on during the Covid crisis.

    The PM is entitled under the Westminster system to run his Cabinet entirely as he wishes, he leads the executive branch effectively after all
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977
    IshmaelZ said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Kenya election 2022: Raila Odinga rejects Kenya president election results"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-62559899

    Oh shit. Kenyan election riots are no fun. Trust me on this.
    Kenyan Bake Off is big news in our house for reasons that remain inaccessible to me.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
    Don't be bloody stupid. I am not clear what I am meant to be outraged about, but freedoms including freedom of speech and movement should in principle be protected. there are however edge cases where freedom of speech becomes freedom to troll, and its consequences become the murder of the innocent, and we should proceed a bit cautiously.
    People should be free to troll. What a silly idea that they shouldn't be.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,811
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
    Don't be bloody stupid. I am not clear what I am meant to be outraged about, but freedoms including freedom of speech and movement should in principle be protected. there are however edge cases where freedom of speech becomes freedom to troll, and its consequences become the murder of the innocent, and we should proceed a bit cautiously.
    If your trolling about the crimes of the British led to someone being murdered in an act of revenge, would you feel guilty?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    ScoMo is a pathological liar of some pedigree. As Macron observed, I don’t think, I KNOW he's a liar.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    kle4 said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    ping said:

    Wholesale gas up another 12.8% today.

    Sept delivery 477p/therm (16.3p/kWh)

    Dec delivery 613p/therm (20.9p/kWh)

    Surely we’re at a price level that guarantees some level of demand destruction?

    https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5253323

    In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.

    I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.

    We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
    That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?

    Not nice
    It does, and it won’t be.

    It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.

    However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
    I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
    I have no doubt at all you are right.

    I expect it will be dressed up in such a way to make it appear they are not caving in for public consumption/face saving but political reality will win the day.

    Our politicians should have done more to prepare for this. They were working on this invasion and reacting to it well before it happened.

    Where it leaves Ukraine, or how it leaves Ukraine, remains to be seen but the Russians have played a long game here. The west has just bumbled along.
    I'm surprised a broad political consensus has lasted as long as it has among much of the West. More pain and no end in sight one would assume would fracture that at some point.
    Yes, I think that is inevitable. Political consensus has lasted so long as it is not really causing any pain domestically. Once it does things will change
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,783
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    That's a crazy story. Does it mean that the actual minister for those departments wasn't actually the minister, and had no power?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
    Don't be bloody stupid. I am not clear what I am meant to be outraged about, but freedoms including freedom of speech and movement should in principle be protected. there are however edge cases where freedom of speech becomes freedom to troll, and its consequences become the murder of the innocent, and we should proceed a bit cautiously.
    If your trolling about the crimes of the British led to someone being murdered in an act of revenge, would you feel guilty?
    If 1. it were trolling and 2. it were reasonably foreseeable that it would have that consequence, then yes. But it is emphatically not trolling and I wonder why you think it is, assuming you are talking about the slave trade. This is an area where freedom of speech and historical accuracy are absolutely paramount. Taking the holocaust as a benchmark, would you like to outline the ways in which the triangular trade fell short of it as a crime?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932
    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
    What if you don't tell him, and then he's unable to reach her and save her from her successful attempt to hang herself from a nearby tree?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,054
    Taz said:

    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    I am with Scottish Power so just checked how it would affect us if we fixed

    We are currently on a 2 year fixed ending in December. Paying about 110 a month. Electric 16.69 p Primary Unit rate, Gas 2.91 p Primary Unit rate.

    They were quoting me just over £5,000 a year.

    A few weeks ago a fix was £3,500 a year.

    This is insane. We live in a modest 3 bed detached, insulated, two of us. Our use is modest.

    @Leon This, repeated across Europe this winter will bring about some sort of accomodation with Russia.
    The EU and UK could easily buckle due to energy prices. But the US won't. Firstly, they have tons of gas, secondly gas(oline) prices (which is more important to American voters) is coming down, and finally, this is the best chance the Americans have had since Afghanistan to see the Russian army decimated, its reserves depleted and its kit destroyed, all without lifting a finger.

    The war will go on whether Europe wants it to or not.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172
    edited August 16

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
    It really is not letting the extremists win. And oyur position is that the deaths of innocents are never a moral consideration.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 8,227
    edited August 16
    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    No.

    The cartoons did produce something worthwhile, they provoked discussion and engaged in free speech. That is a good in its own right. See my post at 12:54 which brought Hebdo into the conversation.

    Free speech isn't only valuable when its what you deem to be "important" because "reasons" it is always important. It is a good thing in and of itself, and people provoking discussions and pushing the boundaries are doing a good thing by doing so.

    In your example where Russia is murdering the families of Brits that all the more justifies people volunteering to go fight that evil, it doesn't mean that those who do so are doing the wrong thing because of any potential backlash.

    You and Ishmael seem to be saying that in the face of evil we should do nothing that might provoke that evil. That is repugnant to me, we should be provoking and fighting that evil, not surrendering to it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    edited August 16
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
    Don't be bloody stupid. I am not clear what I am meant to be outraged about, but freedoms including freedom of speech and movement should in principle be protected. there are however edge cases where freedom of speech becomes freedom to troll, and its consequences become the murder of the innocent, and we should proceed a bit cautiously.
    Sometimes people express viewpoints that I find grossly offensive. Hitherto, I've exercised sufficient self-control not to assault anyone because of them, If I cease to exercise such self-control, does the fault lie with me, or with the person expressing the opinion I find offsnsive?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,328
    edited August 16
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    I think the main thing you miss is that the more wound up, the more offended someone is likely to be, the more likely people will go after them.

    I have a friend like this - if you make a joke at his expense, you get a brilliant, OTT reaction out of him. Lots of grumbling. And, 10 years later, he is still mocked relentlessly.

    He's a friend though, because he understands that the onus is on him not be wound up so much. And if he is wound up, not to punch the shit out of me.

    I think this is an essential part of the human condition. Best exhibited at the fringe, where everyone is taking the piss out of the pro-trans lobby.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    I am with Scottish Power so just checked how it would affect us if we fixed

    We are currently on a 2 year fixed ending in December. Paying about 110 a month. Electric 16.69 p Primary Unit rate, Gas 2.91 p Primary Unit rate.

    They were quoting me just over £5,000 a year.

    A few weeks ago a fix was £3,500 a year.

    This is insane. We live in a modest 3 bed detached, insulated, two of us. Our use is modest.

    @Leon This, repeated across Europe this winter will bring about some sort of accomodation with Russia.
    I doubt anyone will be fixing in 2023, surely everyone is just going to go variable and pray the cap drops ?

    The thing is every fix agreed to by the energy middlemen is costing them a packet as the wholesale price goes up , so they'll have to continually overestimate future fixes. Bit annoyed I didn't get a 3 yr fix till Oct 24 now but oh well.
    Yup, I was just looking at the fixes to see what the pricing was. They were set above the forecast cap anyway in anticipation of future rises.

    I am glad I got a 2 year fix in 2020 to the end of 2022.

    Go onto the variable rate and see what happens seems to be the advice. We will go with that

    Paying an extra 400 a month on gas and electricity won't bankrupt us but it will mean a couple of nights out less a month. That multiplied across the whole nation means a savage new year for the hospitality industry which will be reeling from rising energy costs too
  • HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    No it isn't, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has brushed off the issue and said Labor should be focusing on the day job, former Liberal PM John Howard has said Morrison should not resign. Turnbull and his ally the former Treasurer Frydenberg may have lambasted Morrison but they are on the other wing of the party and his former Home Minister if she was doing her job properly should have had no concerns about being checked up on during the Covid crisis.

    The PM is entitled under the Westminster system to run his Cabinet entirely as he wishes, he leads the executive branch effectively after all
    Please stop talking nonsense about Australian politics - You are correct in saying Turnbull has no love for Morrison, but Josh Frydenberg hasn't yet made a comment about the situation given he apparently didn't find out until today.

    John Howard was on the ABC and what he actually said was that Scott Morrison shouldn't resign as the Liberals could do without a by-election right now. It wasn't an endorsement of his behavior.

    As I've already said I can confirm this is a big story down under.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
    It really is not letting the extremists win. And oyur position is that the deaths of innocents are never a moral consideration.
    They are a moral consideration when we are the ones pulling the trigger. If you're thinking of bombing a school because a terrorist is hiding in it, then that's a moral consideration.

    When it comes to engaging in free speech, it never is.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    Cyclefree said:

    "85 years ago English judge Lord Moulton, said that human action can be divided into three domains. At one end is the law at the other is free choice and between them is the realm of manners. In this realm Lord Moulton said, "lies a domain in which our actions are not determined by law but in which we are not free to behave in any way we choose. In this domain we act with greater or lesser freedom from constraint, on a continuum that extends from a consciousness of duty through a sense of what is required by public spirit, to good form appropriate in a given situation".

    If only BoZo had read, and understood, that passage when he was PM...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    New font on Vanilla on my phone.
    I think I like it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    No it isn't, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has brushed off the issue and said Labor should be focusing on the day job, former Liberal PM John Howard has said Morrison should not resign. Turnbull and his ally the former Treasurer Frydenberg may have lambasted Morrison but they are on the other wing of the party and his former Home Minister if she was doing her job properly should have had no concerns about being checked up on during the Covid crisis.

    The PM is entitled under the Westminster system to run his Cabinet entirely as he wishes, he leads the executive branch effectively after all
    Please stop talking nonsense about Australian politics - You are correct in saying Turnbull has no love for Morrison, but Josh Frydenberg hasn't yet made a comment about the situation given he apparently didn't find out until today.

    John Howard was on the ABC and what he actually said was that Scott Morrison shouldn't resign as the Liberals could do without a by-election right now. It wasn't an endorsement of his behavior.

    As I've already said I can confirm this is a big story down under.
    Actually John Howard also said 'There are reasons why he did it. And part of the conservative tradition is to always understand the context," he said. Plus 'Mr Howard said he did not believe "any criticism can be offered at the Governor-General" for signing off on Mr Morrison's appointments to the ministries, because on the face of it, it was "nothing illegal".

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-16/john-howard-says-scott-morrison-should-remain-in-parliament/101339690

    John Howard is the Thatcher of the Australian Liberal Party in his influence on it, so that is that.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
    What if you don't tell him, and then he's unable to reach her and save her from her successful attempt to hang herself from a nearby tree?
    Good point.

    The whole thought experiment is from Kant, and he thought that telling the truth is so important that it was the right thing to do in these circumstances. if you said She is in the dining room, and she was, and got killed, you are fine. the only circumstances where you could be to blame were if you wrongly thought she was in the dining room, and you said in the kitchen, and she was in the kitchen and got killed.

    Me neither.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    Fine, and I am sure the families of those Jews would agree with you.
    I am too. People who believe that 'provocateurs' are responsible for crimes rather than criminals are thankfully rare eccentric, contrarian cranks like you.
    Responsible for and causative of is a distinction which many adults are capable of making.

    You don't realise it, but you have committed yourself to saying She's in the attic in that 1940s Netherlands scenario.
    Provocateurs are neither responsible for, nor causative of, any actions taken by criminals they provoked. Provocation is a part of life, a healthy and necessary part of it, and the provoked being unable to handle it properly is what causes any actions they then take.

    We should provoke the sensitive fools more often so they become better able to handle their emotions.

    PS No I didn't.
    Sure, and it is cost free to you. So that's fine. Glad we sorted that.

    You did. Answering the question truthfully is just exercising freedom of speech, and the consequences are none of your business, it's all those nasty germans. So what is your objection to answering truthfully?
    Unlike you I can understand saying something that pisses someone off, which 'provokes' them, and engaging in activity which might be aiding and abetting a crime.

    Aiding and abetting and provocation are not the same thing.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    No it isn't, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has brushed off the issue and said Labor should be focusing on the day job, former Liberal PM John Howard has said Morrison should not resign. Turnbull and his ally the former Treasurer Frydenberg may have lambasted Morrison but they are on the other wing of the party and his former Home Minister if she was doing her job properly should have had no concerns about being checked up on during the Covid crisis.

    The PM is entitled under the Westminster system to run his Cabinet entirely as he wishes, he leads the executive branch effectively after all
    Please stop talking nonsense about Australian politics - You are correct in saying Turnbull has no love for Morrison, but Josh Frydenberg hasn't yet made a comment about the situation given he apparently didn't find out until today.

    John Howard was on the ABC and what he actually said was that Scott Morrison shouldn't resign as the Liberals could do without a by-election right now. It wasn't an endorsement of his behavior.

    As I've already said I can confirm this is a big story down under.
    Actually John Howard also said 'There are reasons why he did it. And part of the conservative tradition is to always understand the context," he said. Plus 'Mr Howard said he did not believe "any criticism can be offered at the Governor-General" for signing off on Mr Morrison's appointments to the ministries, because on the face of it, it was "nothing illegal".

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-16/john-howard-says-scott-morrison-should-remain-in-parliament/101339690

    John Howard is the Thatcher of the Australian Liberal Party in his influence on it, so that is that.
    "Apart from anything else, it's not in the interests of the Liberal Party — a by-election at the moment, in a very safe seat — particularly as in the state of New South Wales we will face a state election in the early part of next year," he said."
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
    It really is not letting the extremists win. And oyur position is that the deaths of innocents are never a moral consideration.
    They are a moral consideration when we are the ones pulling the trigger. If you're thinking of bombing a school because a terrorist is hiding in it, then that's a moral consideration.

    When it comes to engaging in free speech, it never is.
    And she is in the attic, Herr SS-Obersturmbannführer.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    edited August 16
    Liz Truss.

    "We’re still in the leadership contest at the moment. Now, my priority is reducing taxes so people can keep more of their own money at the same time as making sure we boost energy supply.

    It is wrong to just keep sticking plasters on this problem. What we actually need to do is make sure we are unleashing more energy, for example, from the North Sea.

    We’re investing in technologies like nuclear, and we’re finding more renewable energy as well."

    Reads like I'm not answering till I've won.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    No it isn't, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has brushed off the issue and said Labor should be focusing on the day job, former Liberal PM John Howard has said Morrison should not resign. Turnbull and his ally the former Treasurer Frydenberg may have lambasted Morrison but they are on the other wing of the party and his former Home Minister if she was doing her job properly should have had no concerns about being checked up on during the Covid crisis.

    The PM is entitled under the Westminster system to run his Cabinet entirely as he wishes, he leads the executive branch effectively after all
    Please stop talking nonsense about Australian politics - You are correct in saying Turnbull has no love for Morrison, but Josh Frydenberg hasn't yet made a comment about the situation given he apparently didn't find out until today.

    John Howard was on the ABC and what he actually said was that Scott Morrison shouldn't resign as the Liberals could do without a by-election right now. It wasn't an endorsement of his behavior.

    As I've already said I can confirm this is a big story down under.
    Actually John Howard also said 'There are reasons why he did it. And part of the conservative tradition is to always understand the context," he said. Plus 'Mr Howard said he did not believe "any criticism can be offered at the Governor-General" for signing off on Mr Morrison's appointments to the ministries, because on the face of it, it was "nothing illegal".

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-16/john-howard-says-scott-morrison-should-remain-in-parliament/101339690

    John Howard is the Thatcher of the Australian Liberal Party in his influence on it, so that is that.
    I have to say having a debate from Sydney with someone from Essex about what is and isn't a big deal in Australian politics is certainly novel!

    Do you Wikipedia an overseas nations' political parties to find the right wing one before taking a stance on an issue?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    There is a moral price to be paid when one refrains from speaking out, censors oneself, for fear that others will react violently.

    Most obviously, one is teaching people that violence is the way to prevent people from disagreeing with them.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss.

    "We’re still in the leadership contest at the moment. Now, my priority is reducing taxes so people can keep more of their own money at the same time as making sure we boost energy supply.

    It is wrong to just keep sticking plasters on this problem. What we actually need to do is make sure we are unleashing more energy, for example, from the North Sea.

    We’re investing in technologies like nuclear, and we’re finding more renewable energy as well."

    Reads like I'm not answering till I've won.

    Reads like she still hasn't grasped the scale of the issue..
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,719

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
    It’s absolutely not what I advocate - I am advocating people thinking about the consequences of their actions. I do not live in fear of their violence in the slightest.

    Publishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons achieved absolutely f all that wasn’t already in the minds of people who buy Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo had plenty of prior examples that if you publish things critical of Islam and Mohammed then radicalised Muslims are likely to take violent action.

    When the decision was made to publish the cartoons either the publisher was naive and stupid (they weren’t) or wanted to push the boundaries and cause a storm.

    That moment they decided to publish them was the moment the clock started ticking on some nasty reprisals. Therefore the “provocateur” knowingly did something that was frankly “unecessary” for reasons which did not outweigh the damage caused.

    We know that extreme Islamism is a disease but things like Charlie Hebdo feed it not defeat it. They become a flag to rally round and stir up shit and attract converts for absolutely no value to those who hate radical Islam and those who are trying to fight it.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?


    This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.

    Yikes.
    If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
    It depends on what alternatives there are. In the 70s my impression is that there weren't alternatives, and so we were screwed by the energy crisis until alternatives were found - other sources of oil, perhaps the Iran-Iraq War breaking the unity of OPEC.

    This time we have alternatives more easily available - US shale gas, renewables, rapprochement with Venezuela - and so the energy shock provides a strong price signal to deploy those alternatives as quickly as possible, and ends as soon as they are.

    In the short-term it will be very bad, but it shouldn't take too long to get to the other side.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
    It really is not letting the extremists win. And oyur position is that the deaths of innocents are never a moral consideration.
    They are a moral consideration when we are the ones pulling the trigger. If you're thinking of bombing a school because a terrorist is hiding in it, then that's a moral consideration.

    When it comes to engaging in free speech, it never is.
    And she is in the attic, Herr SS-Obersturmbannführer.
    Why do you think the law distinguishes between (a) abetting the commission of a crime and (b) saying something that someone else violently disagrees with?

    The first is treated as criminal, the second is not.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss.

    "We’re still in the leadership contest at the moment. Now, my priority is reducing taxes so people can keep more of their own money at the same time as making sure we boost energy supply.

    It is wrong to just keep sticking plasters on this problem. What we actually need to do is make sure we are unleashing more energy, for example, from the North Sea.

    We’re investing in technologies like nuclear, and we’re finding more renewable energy as well."

    Reads like I'm not answering till I've won.

    Reads like she still hasn't grasped the scale of the issue..


    What is clocks?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735
    edited August 16

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    No it isn't, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has brushed off the issue and said Labor should be focusing on the day job, former Liberal PM John Howard has said Morrison should not resign. Turnbull and his ally the former Treasurer Frydenberg may have lambasted Morrison but they are on the other wing of the party and his former Home Minister if she was doing her job properly should have had no concerns about being checked up on during the Covid crisis.

    The PM is entitled under the Westminster system to run his Cabinet entirely as he wishes, he leads the executive branch effectively after all
    Please stop talking nonsense about Australian politics - You are correct in saying Turnbull has no love for Morrison, but Josh Frydenberg hasn't yet made a comment about the situation given he apparently didn't find out until today.

    John Howard was on the ABC and what he actually said was that Scott Morrison shouldn't resign as the Liberals could do without a by-election right now. It wasn't an endorsement of his behavior.

    As I've already said I can confirm this is a big story down under.
    Actually John Howard also said 'There are reasons why he did it. And part of the conservative tradition is to always understand the context," he said. Plus 'Mr Howard said he did not believe "any criticism can be offered at the Governor-General" for signing off on Mr Morrison's appointments to the ministries, because on the face of it, it was "nothing illegal".

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-16/john-howard-says-scott-morrison-should-remain-in-parliament/101339690

    John Howard is the Thatcher of the Australian Liberal Party in his influence on it, so that is that.
    I have to say having a debate from Sydney with someone from Essex about what is and isn't a big deal in Australian politics is certainly novel!

    Do you Wikipedia an overseas nations' political parties to find the right wing one before taking a stance on an issue?
    This is PB you don't just have to discuss the politics of your home nation and it wasn't me who raised the topic
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172
    Sean_F said:

    There is a moral price to be paid when one refrains from speaking out, censors oneself, for fear that others will react violently.

    Most obviously, one is teaching people that violence is the way to prevent people from disagreeing with them.

    There absolutely is. There is also an absolutely terrible physical price to be paid for speaking out, in some circumstances. Those Jews died as hostages. Jewish hostages of Islamists do not get an easy death. There is therefore a trade off to be made: does the duty to speak freely outweigh, in this particular case, the duty not to cause people to be tortured to death?
  • eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss.

    "We’re still in the leadership contest at the moment. Now, my priority is reducing taxes so people can keep more of their own money at the same time as making sure we boost energy supply.

    It is wrong to just keep sticking plasters on this problem. What we actually need to do is make sure we are unleashing more energy, for example, from the North Sea.

    We’re investing in technologies like nuclear, and we’re finding more renewable energy as well."

    Reads like I'm not answering till I've won.

    Reads like she still hasn't grasped the scale of the issue..
    Nah, dixiedean has the right of it, she's equivocated clearly at the beginning there giving herself room to change answer once she's safely ensconced in 10 Downing Street.

    She's saying, for the benefit of the leadership contest, 'these are my priorities and principles for normal circumstances' while leaving herself scope to say as soon as she's in office that due to the scale of the issue we aren't currently in normal circumstances.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    No it isn't, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has brushed off the issue and said Labor should be focusing on the day job, former Liberal PM John Howard has said Morrison should not resign. Turnbull and his ally the former Treasurer Frydenberg may have lambasted Morrison but they are on the other wing of the party and his former Home Minister if she was doing her job properly should have had no concerns about being checked up on during the Covid crisis.

    The PM is entitled under the Westminster system to run his Cabinet entirely as he wishes, he leads the executive branch effectively after all
    Please stop talking nonsense about Australian politics - You are correct in saying Turnbull has no love for Morrison, but Josh Frydenberg hasn't yet made a comment about the situation given he apparently didn't find out until today.

    John Howard was on the ABC and what he actually said was that Scott Morrison shouldn't resign as the Liberals could do without a by-election right now. It wasn't an endorsement of his behavior.

    As I've already said I can confirm this is a big story down under.
    Actually John Howard also said 'There are reasons why he did it. And part of the conservative tradition is to always understand the context," he said. Plus 'Mr Howard said he did not believe "any criticism can be offered at the Governor-General" for signing off on Mr Morrison's appointments to the ministries, because on the face of it, it was "nothing illegal".

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-16/john-howard-says-scott-morrison-should-remain-in-parliament/101339690

    John Howard is the Thatcher of the Australian Liberal Party in his influence on it, so that is that.
    "Apart from anything else, it's not in the interests of the Liberal Party — a by-election at the moment, in a very safe seat — particularly as in the state of New South Wales we will face a state election in the early part of next year," he said."
    As well but you missed out the part where Howard said Morrison had reasons for doing it, the context needed to be looked at and it was not illegal
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    Andy_JS said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
    Don't be bloody stupid. I am not clear what I am meant to be outraged about, but freedoms including freedom of speech and movement should in principle be protected. there are however edge cases where freedom of speech becomes freedom to troll, and its consequences become the murder of the innocent, and we should proceed a bit cautiously.
    People should be free to troll. What a silly idea that they shouldn't be.
    Let me float one -

    I print some lewd cartoons of Mohammed and go around a heavily Muslim neighbourhood sticking them through letterboxes.

    Should I be free to do that under the law?
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    I am with Scottish Power so just checked how it would affect us if we fixed

    We are currently on a 2 year fixed ending in December. Paying about 110 a month. Electric 16.69 p Primary Unit rate, Gas 2.91 p Primary Unit rate.

    They were quoting me just over £5,000 a year.

    A few weeks ago a fix was £3,500 a year.

    This is insane. We live in a modest 3 bed detached, insulated, two of us. Our use is modest.

    @Leon This, repeated across Europe this winter will bring about some sort of accomodation with Russia.
    I doubt anyone will be fixing in 2023, surely everyone is just going to go variable and pray the cap drops ?

    The thing is every fix agreed to by the energy middlemen is costing them a packet as the wholesale price goes up , so they'll have to continually overestimate future fixes. Bit annoyed I didn't get a 3 yr fix till Oct 24 now but oh well.
    Yup, I was just looking at the fixes to see what the pricing was. They were set above the forecast cap anyway in anticipation of future rises.

    I am glad I got a 2 year fix in 2020 to the end of 2022.

    Go onto the variable rate and see what happens seems to be the advice. We will go with that

    Paying an extra 400 a month on gas and electricity won't bankrupt us but it will mean a couple of nights out less a month. That multiplied across the whole nation means a savage new year for the hospitality industry which will be reeling from rising energy costs too
    Yep - when this hits the impact on the hospitality industry will be historic. I paid £70 for a meal out on Sunday - it would have been £40-45 a couple of years back..

    It's easy to see the cost of a night out doubling which when added to cutting back to pay other bills could easily result in a weekly night out becoming monthly.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,115
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss.

    "We’re still in the leadership contest at the moment. Now, my priority is reducing taxes so people can keep more of their own money at the same time as making sure we boost energy supply.

    It is wrong to just keep sticking plasters on this problem. What we actually need to do is make sure we are unleashing more energy, for example, from the North Sea.

    We’re investing in technologies like nuclear, and we’re finding more renewable energy as well."

    Reads like I'm not answering till I've won.

    Reads like she still hasn't grasped the scale of the issue..
    Can you blame her not wanting to? She's reaching the pinnacle just as it collapses.

    (OK, it's really bad news for us that someone who wants to run the nation doesn't understand the state of the nation, but at a human level, I can understand the cloud of "God, please no".)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932
    IshmaelZ said:

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
    It really is not letting the extremists win. And oyur position is that the deaths of innocents are never a moral consideration.
    If the extremists want you to stop criticising them and their religion then by staying silent because of fear of their response you are absolutely letting them win. Anything else from you is sophistry.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?


    This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.

    Yikes.
    If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
    It's the price for supporting Ukraine, and a half arsed approach to renewables/net zero politicians thought they had more time for. Now the consensus is it's a price worth paying, but that is the simple truth.
    Yep, I'd like policitians to now say we need to full speed on any and all renewable sources.

    Blanket the country with wind turbines, solar panels whatever's needed.
    The only thing that could be done by next winter is to buy *all* the containerised diesel generators. You might get a few small projects for other stuff done - probably not enough to make a big difference.
    The purpose of going all out for renewables, and other measures, is to make sure we only have one shit winter, instead of two, or three, or more.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
    Don't be bloody stupid. I am not clear what I am meant to be outraged about, but freedoms including freedom of speech and movement should in principle be protected. there are however edge cases where freedom of speech becomes freedom to troll, and its consequences become the murder of the innocent, and we should proceed a bit cautiously.
    People should be free to troll. What a silly idea that they shouldn't be.
    Let me float one -

    I print some lewd cartoons of Mohammed and go around a heavily Muslim neighbourhood sticking them through letterboxes.

    Should I be free to do that under the law?
    I don't see how Barty R by his own lights is not just free, but positively obliged, to do exactly that. That'll show 'em!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    For some CoL porn i've just checked my deal. Im at the back end of a fixed deal till November, my leccy is about 20p/kwh, gas 4p/kwh, current quotes 71p leccy and 18p gas with daily charge double current.
    2 bed flat live alone, frugal ish use (cooker hob gas, heating set to 21c central heat, hot water maintained throughout day, standard electricity use, 1 fridge, 1 freezer, oven occasionally, TVs, lights, kettle etc plus 'tech'. I've built up 260 in credit on an 86/month DD.
    My fag packet says im looking at 250/month from November?
    I exist on benefits.
    As the fella says in The Great Escape 'Gooooood luck'
    And im a single fella who doesnt like too much warmth, wears a jumper rather than crank it up etc
    People with kids or bigger properties but the same benefit or low income are truly screwed arent they?
    Somethings gotta give.
  • boulay said:

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
    It’s absolutely not what I advocate - I am advocating people thinking about the consequences of their actions. I do not live in fear of their violence in the slightest.

    Publishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons achieved absolutely f all that wasn’t already in the minds of people who buy Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo had plenty of prior examples that if you publish things critical of Islam and Mohammed then radicalised Muslims are likely to take violent action.

    When the decision was made to publish the cartoons either the publisher was naive and stupid (they weren’t) or wanted to push the boundaries and cause a storm.

    That moment they decided to publish them was the moment the clock started ticking on some nasty reprisals. Therefore the “provocateur” knowingly did something that was frankly “unecessary” for reasons which did not outweigh the damage caused.

    We know that extreme Islamism is a disease but things like Charlie Hebdo feed it not defeat it. They become a flag to rally round and stir up shit and attract converts for absolutely no value to those who hate radical Islam and those who are trying to fight it.

    Sad to see a second apologist for evil here along with Ishmael, though I defend your right to share your awful views.

    Hebdo cartoon achieved plenty, provoking discussions is a public good in and of itself, even if those offended by the provocation react violently to it.

    The way to fight evils like Islamism isn't to pull back our hard-won freedoms like free expression, it is to double down the fight for them. Hebdo are doing more to fight that good fight than you and Ishmael are, for they they are absolutely doing a very good thing that is commendable in its own right.

    Fighting for free speech is a "necessity" in and of itself.
  • pingping Posts: 2,659
    edited August 16
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/16/crown-paints-advert-complaints-misogyny-sexism

    It’s a shit advert, which highlights an interesting problem.

    How the hell do you sell paint?

    Were I an ad agency, I’d probably conclude that deliberately provoking controversy was a decent strategy. Even if that was what they were thinking, surely they could have come up with something better than that ad.

    It’s just crap.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
    This has driven you mad, has it not?

    Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*

    *To other people.
    I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not

    I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
    It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid

    1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.

    2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.

    3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
    2 is totally wrong.

    There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.

    Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
    And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.

    I don't agree.
    Are you in favour of a Trump-style entry ban?
    Doesn't really help in France.
    How much further would you be prepared to go to avoid having blood on your hands? Repatriation?
    There's more than enough indigenous muslims.

    Not sure what point you are making here.
    I'm suggesting that you too regard the deaths of innocent people as an acceptable price to pay.
    Yes, in some circumstances.
    Then your outrage is completely synthetic.
    Don't be bloody stupid. I am not clear what I am meant to be outraged about, but freedoms including freedom of speech and movement should in principle be protected. there are however edge cases where freedom of speech becomes freedom to troll, and its consequences become the murder of the innocent, and we should proceed a bit cautiously.
    People should be free to troll. What a silly idea that they shouldn't be.
    Let me float one -

    I print some lewd cartoons of Mohammed and go around a heavily Muslim neighbourhood sticking them through letterboxes.

    Should I be free to do that under the law?
    I would say inserting inflammatory literature into someone's house is pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech etc a little.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,530
    edited August 16
    Andy_JS said:

    "Kenya election 2022: Raila Odinga rejects Kenya president election results"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-62559899

    Meanwhile in America

    2020 Presidential election.....almost zero ballot irregularities

    2022 recall of radical Democrat DA in LA county......huge ballot irregularities. Massive. Almost 200,00 signatures rejected.

    So the US voting system is fine. Or it isn't.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,719

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    No.

    The cartoons did produce something
    worthwhile, they provoked discussion and engaged in free speech. That is a good in
    its own right. See my post at 12:54 which brought Hebdo into the conversation.

    Free speech isn't only valuable when its
    what you deem to be "important" because
    "reasons" it is always important. It is a good thing in and of itself, and people provoking
    discussions and pushing the boundaries are doing a good thing by doing so.

    In your example where Russia is murdering
    the families of Brits that all the more justifies people volunteering to go fight that evil, it
    doesn't mean that those who do so are doing the wrong thing because of any
    potential backlash.

    You and Ishmael seem to be saying that in
    the face of evil we should do nothing that might provoke that evil. That is repugnant to me, we should be provoking and fighting
    that evil, not surrendering to it.
    It amuses me when Billy Big Balls talk about “fighting evil and not surrendering to it” from their home office where they have never had to actually face an evil, deal with an evil and take personal risks in defeating an evil.

    There are people who fight these evils every day, people who do it quietly and do it well at great risk who would likely rather the likes of Charlie Hebdo didn’t stir matters up further and make their job harder. They didn’t “provoke a discussion” because that discussion had already been going on for a long time (see Salman Rushdie) and a pissant magazine publishing these was not going to change the views of the west in any way.

    How did you fight Islamist or Russian evil today? Or over the last ten years even?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,115
    ping said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/16/crown-paints-advert-complaints-misogyny-sexism

    It’s a shit advert, which highlights an interesting problem.

    How the hell do you sell paint?

    Were I an ad agency, I’d probably conclude that deliberately provoking controversy was a decent strategy.

    Under current circumstances, say that you can burn it for fuel.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    There is a moral price to be paid when one refrains from speaking out, censors oneself, for fear that others will react violently.

    Most obviously, one is teaching people that violence is the way to prevent people from disagreeing with them.

    There absolutely is. There is also an absolutely terrible physical price to be paid for speaking out, in some circumstances. Those Jews died as hostages. Jewish hostages of Islamists do not get an easy death. There is therefore a trade off to be made: does the duty to speak freely outweigh, in this particular case, the duty not to cause people to be tortured to death?
    Except there was no causal link that led to people being tortured to death. No causal abetting of a crime.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    Taz said:

    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    I am with Scottish Power so just checked how it would affect us if we fixed

    We are currently on a 2 year fixed ending in December. Paying about 110 a month. Electric 16.69 p Primary Unit rate, Gas 2.91 p Primary Unit rate.

    They were quoting me just over £5,000 a year.

    A few weeks ago a fix was £3,500 a year.

    This is insane. We live in a modest 3 bed detached, insulated, two of us. Our use is modest.

    @Leon This, repeated across Europe this winter will bring about some sort of accomodation with Russia.
    Business quotes are equally horrific.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?


    This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.

    Yikes.
    If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
    It's the price for supporting Ukraine, and a half arsed approach to renewables/net zero politicians thought they had more time for. Now the consensus is it's a price worth paying, but that is the simple truth.
    Yep, I'd like policitians to now say we need to full speed on any and all renewable sources.

    Blanket the country with wind turbines, solar panels whatever's needed.
    The only thing that could be done by next winter is to buy *all* the containerised diesel generators. You might get a few small projects for other stuff done - probably not enough to make a big difference.
    The purpose of going all out for renewables, and other measures, is to make sure we only have one shit winter, instead of two, or three, or more.
    The problem is that with the best will in the world we cannot produce enough power from renewables either this year, or next or even probably in 5 years time.

    This is not an argument to leave off on renewables nor to stop trying to get as much installed as possible as soon as possible. But there are, as I set out yesterday, basic facts of life when it comes to building stuff and we are already working just about as fast as possible as a country to get this stuff done.

    The issue is that the Government - for the sake of appearances - has committed itself to unrealistic timelines and seems to think that just by reducing the amount of hydrocarbons available we will magic up renewables to replace them. It doesn't work that way and it is, in part at least, why we are in the mess we are now.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    What you advocate is letting the extremists win and living in fear of their violence. That is thankfully anathema to most people.
    It’s absolutely not what I advocate - I am advocating people thinking about the consequences of their actions. I do not live in fear of their violence in the slightest.

    Publishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons achieved absolutely f all that wasn’t already in the minds of people who buy Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo had plenty of prior examples that if you publish things critical of Islam and Mohammed then radicalised Muslims are likely to take violent action.

    When the decision was made to publish the cartoons either the publisher was naive and stupid (they weren’t) or wanted to push the boundaries and cause a storm.

    That moment they decided to publish them was the moment the clock started ticking on some nasty reprisals. Therefore the “provocateur” knowingly did something that was frankly “unecessary” for reasons which did not outweigh the damage caused.

    We know that extreme Islamism is a disease but things like Charlie Hebdo feed it not defeat it. They become a flag to rally round and stir up shit and attract converts for absolutely no value to those who hate radical Islam and those who are trying to fight it.

    Sad to see a second apologist for evil here along with Ishmael, though I defend your right to share your awful views.

    Hebdo cartoon achieved plenty, provoking discussions is a public good in and of itself, even if those offended by the provocation react violently to it.

    The way to fight evils like Islamism isn't to pull back our hard-won freedoms like free expression, it is to double down the fight for them. Hebdo are doing more to fight that good fight than you and Ishmael are, for they they are absolutely doing a very good thing that is commendable in its own right.

    Fighting for free speech is a "necessity" in and of itself.
    Being against Jews being tortured to death is to be an apologist for evil. Course it is.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    There is a moral price to be paid when one refrains from speaking out, censors oneself, for fear that others will react violently.

    Most obviously, one is teaching people that violence is the way to prevent people from disagreeing with them.

    There absolutely is. There is also an absolutely terrible physical price to be paid for speaking out, in some circumstances. Those Jews died as hostages. Jewish hostages of Islamists do not get an easy death. There is therefore a trade off to be made: does the duty to speak freely outweigh, in this particular case, the duty not to cause people to be tortured to death?
    I dispute that anyone other than the murderers "caused" their deaths.

    No one stuck a head to these loons and said, "torture these Jews to death or else." They chose, entirely freely and voluntarily to torture Jews to death because that is what they enjoy doing.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,249
    edited August 16

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Too late for Boris to emulate ?

    Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles

    Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?

    What a bizarre story, with even most of the Cabinet unaware. If it was for the reasons he states, emergency safeguard, why wasn't it all completely in the open?
    It is bizarre. And it is his own Party who are lambasting him.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-serious-implications-of-morrison-s-shadow-grab-for-power-20220816-p5baax.html

    It sets an extremely dangerous precedent in a Westminster system.
    It's in effect giving yourself Presidential veto powers. In secret.
    No it isn't, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has brushed off the issue and said Labor should be focusing on the day job, former Liberal PM John Howard has said Morrison should not resign. Turnbull and his ally the former Treasurer Frydenberg may have lambasted Morrison but they are on the other wing of the party and his former Home Minister if she was doing her job properly should have had no concerns about being checked up on during the Covid crisis.

    The PM is entitled under the Westminster system to run his Cabinet entirely as he wishes, he leads the executive branch effectively after all
    Please stop talking nonsense about Australian politics - You are correct in saying Turnbull has no love for Morrison, but Josh Frydenberg hasn't yet made a comment about the situation given he apparently didn't find out until today.

    John Howard was on the ABC and what he actually said was that Scott Morrison shouldn't resign as the Liberals could do without a by-election right now. It wasn't an endorsement of his behavior.

    As I've already said I can confirm this is a big story down under.
    Actually John Howard also said 'There are reasons why he did it. And part of the conservative tradition is to always understand the context," he said. Plus 'Mr Howard said he did not believe "any criticism can be offered at the Governor-General" for signing off on Mr Morrison's appointments to the ministries, because on the face of it, it was "nothing illegal".

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-16/john-howard-says-scott-morrison-should-remain-in-parliament/101339690

    John Howard is the Thatcher of the Australian Liberal Party in his influence on it, so that is that.
    I have to say having a debate from Sydney with someone from Essex about what is and isn't a big deal in Australian politics is certainly novel!

    Do you Wikipedia an overseas nations' political parties to find the right wing one before taking a stance on an issue?
    You appear not to have realised yet there is absolutely no point debating with @HYUFD. The fact he is entirely ignorant about 99% of human knowledge only encourages him.

    Same with BartyBobbins.

    Amusingly the two often argue amongst themselves, each refusing to give way, each totally bewildered by fact.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    edited August 16

    For some CoL porn i've just checked my deal. Im at the back end of a fixed deal till November, my leccy is about 20p/kwh, gas 4p/kwh, current quotes 71p leccy and 18p gas with daily charge double current.
    2 bed flat live alone, frugal ish use (cooker hob gas, heating set to 21c central heat, hot water maintained throughout day, standard electricity use, 1 fridge, 1 freezer, oven occasionally, TVs, lights, kettle etc plus 'tech'. I've built up 260 in credit on an 86/month DD.
    My fag packet says im looking at 250/month from November?
    I exist on benefits.
    As the fella says in The Great Escape 'Gooooood luck'
    And im a single fella who doesnt like too much warmth, wears a jumper rather than crank it up etc
    People with kids or bigger properties but the same benefit or low income are truly screwed arent they?
    Somethings gotta give.

    Yeah.
    The numbers just don't add up for millions of folk.
    A family with three teenagers in a large, Victorian house? It doesn't have to be low income. It can be moderate and still ruinous.
    Status quo cannot hold. Not convinced it can hold till September 5th either, but that looks like the line.
    26th when the new price cap is announced is when the pressure to break silence will be maximum.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,172

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    There is a moral price to be paid when one refrains from speaking out, censors oneself, for fear that others will react violently.

    Most obviously, one is teaching people that violence is the way to prevent people from disagreeing with them.

    There absolutely is. There is also an absolutely terrible physical price to be paid for speaking out, in some circumstances. Those Jews died as hostages. Jewish hostages of Islamists do not get an easy death. There is therefore a trade off to be made: does the duty to speak freely outweigh, in this particular case, the duty not to cause people to be tortured to death?
    Except there was no causal link that led to people being tortured to death. No causal abetting of a crime.
    Just not right. The torture would not have happened but for the cartoons. We both know this.
  • boulay said:

    boulay said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".

    Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.

    It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.

    The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.

    Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
    A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
    Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
    Yes.

    Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
    No.

    You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
    OK

    I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.

    OK
    I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.

    However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
    OK

    if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
    If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
    You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.

    And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
    There is no concept of causation here. The deaths would not have occurred but for twisted individuals that think their beliefs are so sacred that they can kill those they dislike. We need to fight that belief, and provoking them is part of that fight.

    'this "excuse" shit' is you claiming that 'provocation' causes deaths, rather than killers causing deaths. People should be able to take provocation without leading to murder and if they can't, its not the provocateurs fault. The provocateur has no shared responsibility under any circumstances.
    I have to agree with Ishmael having briefly caught up.

    The ultimate responsibility for the act is the one who carries it out but there is still a responsibility of the “provocateur” in certain situations.

    If for example the Charlie Hebdo cartoons had been so so important to publish, that they exposed some absolutely heinous crime that was being carried out by islamists unknown to the world then it could be argued that publishing them was so important that the consequential murders were a price “worth paying” by society (although not likely for the victims and their families).

    The fact is that virtually everyone who would ever see the cartoons already had a perception of Islamic issues that the cartoons depicted or would declare them as blasphemy. So the cartoons whilst satirical didn’t actually achieve anything worthwhile except the deaths in revenge. Publishing was pure provocation without any great benefit to society.

    If it had been a German cartoonist publishing cartoons which exposed Auschwitz et al before anyone else knew it and a band of Hitler Youth had gone on a murderous rampage then the publication would be brave and necessary and the consequences less on the “provocateur” and more on the actors.

    If you decided today to join the Ukrainian Army and had discovered that the families of Brits who have been captured by the Russians and identified were being tracked down and poisoned by the Russians in the UK (despite the preposterousness of this) and then you were captured, identified and your family killed do you not think that, despite your good motives, you would carry some of the blame for causing deaths by doing something you did not absolutely need to do?

    Would you, afterwards, not feel that had you not carried out your actions knowing the potential consequences/backlash, that maybe you should not have done what you did?

    No.

    The cartoons did produce something
    worthwhile, they provoked discussion and engaged in free speech. That is a good in
    its own right. See my post at 12:54 which brought Hebdo into the conversation.

    Free speech isn't only valuable when its
    what you deem to be "important" because
    "reasons" it is always important. It is a good thing in and of itself, and people provoking
    discussions and pushing the boundaries are doing a good thing by doing so.

    In your example where Russia is murdering
    the families of Brits that all the more justifies people volunteering to go fight that evil, it
    doesn't mean that those who do so are doing the wrong thing because of any
    potential backlash.

    You and Ishmael seem to be saying that in
    the face of evil we should do nothing that might provoke that evil. That is repugnant to me, we should be provoking and fighting
    that evil, not surrendering to it.
    It amuses me when Billy Big Balls talk about “fighting evil and not surrendering to it” from their home office where they have never had to actually face an evil, deal with an evil and take personal risks in defeating an evil.

    There are people who fight these evils every day, people who do it quietly and do it well at great risk who would likely rather the likes of Charlie Hebdo didn’t stir matters up further and make their job harder. They didn’t “provoke a discussion” because that discussion had already been going on for a long time (see Salman Rushdie) and a pissant magazine publishing these was not going to change the views of the west in any way.

    How did you fight Islamist or Russian evil today? Or over the last ten years even?
    We all do our own little bits. Some more than others, but every little helps.

    How did I fight evil today? By standing up to apologists for it like you and Ishmael who argue in further of surrendering hard-won free speech in order to not provoke reprisals.

    On a cosmic scale that may be inconsequential, but all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,249
    edited August 16
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    ping said:

    From the MSE energy forum;

    “I’ve been watching SP (Scottish Power) prices since i joined in jan
    today they have wacked there 1 year fixed prices right up

    Electric Standing charge
    43.14p
    Primary unit rate
    79.18p
    Gas Standing charge
    21.46p
    Primary unit rate
    23.44p”

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379908/sp-massive-increase

    Yes, you read that right. 79p/kWh for leccy.

    I am with Scottish Power so just checked how it would affect us if we fixed

    We are currently on a 2 year fixed ending in December. Paying about 110 a month. Electric 16.69 p Primary Unit rate, Gas 2.91 p Primary Unit rate.

    They were quoting me just over £5,000 a year.

    A few weeks ago a fix was £3,500 a year.

    This is insane. We live in a modest 3 bed detached, insulated, two of us. Our use is modest.

    @Leon This, repeated across Europe this winter will bring about some sort of accomodation with Russia.
    Business quotes are equally horrific.
    Worse, if I understand correctly.

    Many businesses will simply pause trading for winter or close up completely.
This discussion has been closed.