Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
This is pure anecdote, but in my travels in the last two years I have noticed a remarkable absence of mosquitoes: everywhere
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
Marriage existed long before Christ.
So what, Christian marriage didn't and that is all that is relevant for marriage in Christian churches
"Police probing fraud claims involving fundraising against the SNP have passed a dossier of information to the Crown Office.
Officers investigating allegations that £600,000 of party funds raised by activists to continue the campaign for Scottish independence have “gone missing” say a progress report had been submitted before Nicola Sturgeon left office as First Minister.
Sturgeon previously rejected the claims, insisting she is “not concerned” about the party’s finances.
Police Scotland previously stated that a fraud allegation relating to the funds was “still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required”.
A formal investigation started in July 2021 after at least 19 criminal complaints were made."
They were supposedly with Crown office months ago and decision was to proceed. Allegedly UK fraud squad involved now.
This investigation has been dragging on for nearly two years now!
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It is ONE of the issues. The loneliness and lack of social skills - due to lockdowns ets - is also a massive problem. Mental illness is surging in young people
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
I can only speak for our Year 7. I've seen classes out of control who make the teacher's lives a misery. Been there done that. Change teacher. Move the (usually a couple of) ringleaders. We have three classes. They are all awful. So you can't move anyone to improve things. And they are awful for everybody. Regardless. BUT. And here is the difference. A class out of control usually gets on reasonably well. They back each other up in an Us Vs Them situation. Our Year 7 also hate each other. They aren't making trouble to wind teachers up. They are doing it cos they can't get on. They don't even have cliques. Because they can't get on long enough to form one. They don't bully. Because they dislike each other on an Equal Opportunities basis. Never seen this before.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
The creation of children thing is tricky, isn't it? After all, Charles and Camilla are of sufficiently ripe years that children would be on the Abraham and Sarah level of surprising.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
Not just Christ, Abba also made it clear -
One man one woman One life to live together One chance to take that never Comes back again
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
This is pure anecdote, but in my travels in the last two years I have noticed a remarkable absence of mosquitoes: everywhere
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
All that tonic water! Mosquitos have of course been very hard hit and deliberately so. I doubt the 45% figure. Also we never hear of new species that have arisen (apart from viruses).
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
And yet Christian priests today are doing just that in some denominations. Funny that.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
And yet Christian priests today are doing just that in some denominations. Funny that.
I disagree. People really do care about Gender self ID (in my experience). I have had multiple conversations where people bring it up, unprompted by me. Indeed a lot of people care about it MORE than me
I was at a party on Saturday with a fair few people and this was one central area of discussion. Trans issues (gender self ID being a subset of that). It's become very salient in recent years because so many people have kids at schools where this agenda is being fiercely imposed. And the parents generally don't like it
Like me quoting what folk say on doorsteps, your experience is a bit anecdotal, though I accept that your have relatives for whom it's very important. But FWIW I've never heard anyone in social conversation or on the doorstep raise the issue, and polling seems to bear out that it isn't often mentioned when people are asked to name issues that concern them.
If specifically asked, I think many people would agree with your middle way - tolerate everything in principle, but draw the line at self-identification where it has a negative impact on others (sports, loos etc.). But in the same way that people will express a view on Prince Harry if you ask them, it doesn't actually register when they think about how to vote. The oddity of the SNP position has been highlight it to people as an issue that they really, really need to care about. That, rather than the issue itself, is perhaps what has eroded SNP support.
@Leon's view on self ID isn't a middle way. It is a busybody, outdated, old-fashioned, static view of the world.
Most people don't give a hoot whether their best mate's daughter's best mate is transitioning. They worry about women's spaces and sport. That's your lot for most people.
Do you have any statistical data whatsoever to underline this point you keep repeating, or is it just 'people don't care', 'many do', 'no they don't', 'yes they do', 'no they don't'?
It is not terribly insightful so far.
Do you care what gender people on PB are or identify as?
I don't see how that is of relevance. You have stated that people don't care about the issue full stop, not that they don't care what gender their fellow online discussion community participants are identifying as.
So I'll take that as a no.
You don't care, I don't care, and Leon doesn't care.
100% don't care. n =3.
Why do you think there are other factors or environments which greatly differ from a random internet chat room.
Life is different from an internet chat room. This is a deeply silly discussion without any meaningful data on whether people care or don't care.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
Not just Christ, Abba also made it clear -
One man one woman One life to live together One chance to take that never Comes back again
If you spell that bands name backwards its the same as a popular band of the 80's.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
The creation of children thing is tricky, isn't it? After all, Charles and Camilla are of sufficiently ripe years that children would be on the Abraham and Sarah level of surprising.
And Rowan Williams refused to marry them, they only got a Church of England blessing
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
And yet Christian priests today are doing just that in some denominations. Funny that.
Only a handful of declining ones.
The growing ones like Pentecostals don't
Ah, so denominations which are declining no longer count as being Christian?
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It is ONE of the issues. The loneliness and lack of social skills - due to lockdowns ets - is also a massive problem. Mental illness is surging in young people
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
I can only speak for our Year 7. I've seen classes out of control who make the teacher's lives a misery. Been there done that. Change teacher. Move the (usually a couple of) ringleaders. We have three classes. They are all awful. So you can't move anyone to improve things. And they are awful for everybody. Regardless. BUT. And here is the difference. A class out of control usually gets on reasonably well. They back each other up in an Us Vs Them situation. Our Year 7 also hate each other. They aren't making trouble to wind teachers up. They are doing it cos they can't get on. They don't even have cliques. Because they can't get on long enough to form one. They don't bully. Because they dislike each other on an Equal Opportunities basis. Never seen this before.
Obviously smart phones need to be banned from schools.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It is ONE of the issues. The loneliness and lack of social skills - due to lockdowns ets - is also a massive problem. Mental illness is surging in young people
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
I can only speak for our Year 7. I've seen classes out of control who make the teacher's lives a misery. Been there done that. Change teacher. Move the (usually a couple of) ringleaders. We have three classes. They are all awful. So you can't move anyone to improve things. And they are awful for everybody. Regardless. BUT. And here is the difference. A class out of control usually gets on reasonably well. They back each other up in an Us Vs Them situation. Our Year 7 also hate each other. They aren't making trouble to wind teachers up. They are doing it cos they can't get on. They don't even have cliques. Because they can't get on long enough to form one. They don't bully. Because they dislike each other on an Equal Opportunities basis. Never seen this before.
Obviously smart phones need to be banned from schools.
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Yes.
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Fair enough, I can't remember what I was doing when Sunak became PM.
I was having lunch with JohnO in Claridge’s celebrating.
I was nearly delayed by Sunak’s motorcade.
My American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) were non-plussed at the lack on interest - where were the riots? the counter protests? - in Rishi becoming PM.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
And yet Christian priests today are doing just that in some denominations. Funny that.
Only a handful of declining ones.
The growing ones like Pentecostals don't
Ah, so denominations which are declining no longer count as being Christian?
How does that affect yours?
Globally the Anglican Church is growing, especially in Africa.
It is only declining most in areas like Scotland, Wales and the USA where Anglican churches perform full homosexual marriages
Evening all, rather ironic that now both the SNP and Scottish Labour Party are led by men who went to one of Scotland's top private schools, Hutcheson's Grammar in Glasgow. Only Douglas Ross went to his local state school, Forres Academy.
A great day for the Union, Hamza Useless will lead the SNP down a dead end.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It is ONE of the issues. The loneliness and lack of social skills - due to lockdowns ets - is also a massive problem. Mental illness is surging in young people
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
I can only speak for our Year 7. I've seen classes out of control who make the teacher's lives a misery. Been there done that. Change teacher. Move the (usually a couple of) ringleaders. We have three classes. They are all awful. So you can't move anyone to improve things. And they are awful for everybody. Regardless. BUT. And here is the difference. A class out of control usually gets on reasonably well. They back each other up in an Us Vs Them situation. Our Year 7 also hate each other. They aren't making trouble to wind teachers up. They are doing it cos they can't get on. They don't even have cliques. Because they can't get on long enough to form one. They don't bully. Because they dislike each other on an Equal Opportunities basis. Never seen this before.
Obviously smart phones need to be banned from schools.
Our school recently sent out an email to parents reiterating that mobile phones needed to be handed in to the teacher at the beginning of the day. But they then added that this was also true for smart watches that had Internet capability.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
i have to agree, not just year 7, but year 8.
I’m almost an anti-Leon, but there is definitely an uptick in teenagers have mental crises among the children of people I know.
Some of the stuff my daughters tell me about her friends suggests that family life has got screwed up for a fair few people. They directly link it to lock down, incidentally.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It is ONE of the issues. The loneliness and lack of social skills - due to lockdowns ets - is also a massive problem. Mental illness is surging in young people
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
I can only speak for our Year 7. I've seen classes out of control who make the teacher's lives a misery. Been there done that. Change teacher. Move the (usually a couple of) ringleaders. We have three classes. They are all awful. So you can't move anyone to improve things. And they are awful for everybody. Regardless. BUT. And here is the difference. A class out of control usually gets on reasonably well. They back each other up in an Us Vs Them situation. Our Year 7 also hate each other. They aren't making trouble to wind teachers up. They are doing it cos they can't get on. They don't even have cliques. Because they can't get on long enough to form one. They don't bully. Because they dislike each other on an Equal Opportunities basis. Never seen this before.
Wow that's very sad. I've always wondered if 11 is a good age to transition to 'big' school. Perhaps some of them are struggling with it. Any luck with the parents?
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
i have to agree, not just year 7, but year 8.
I’m almost an anti-Leon, but there is definitely an uptick in teenagers have mental crises among the children of people I know.
Some of the stuff my daughters tell me about her friends suggests that family life has got screwed up for a fair few people. They directly link it to lock down, incidentally.
Why are you an anti leon? Genuine question
Do I have a kind of antimatter version of me? Will we explode if we meet?
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It is ONE of the issues. The loneliness and lack of social skills - due to lockdowns ets - is also a massive problem. Mental illness is surging in young people
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
I can only speak for our Year 7. I've seen classes out of control who make the teacher's lives a misery. Been there done that. Change teacher. Move the (usually a couple of) ringleaders. We have three classes. They are all awful. So you can't move anyone to improve things. And they are awful for everybody. Regardless. BUT. And here is the difference. A class out of control usually gets on reasonably well. They back each other up in an Us Vs Them situation. Our Year 7 also hate each other. They aren't making trouble to wind teachers up. They are doing it cos they can't get on. They don't even have cliques. Because they can't get on long enough to form one. They don't bully. Because they dislike each other on an Equal Opportunities basis. Never seen this before.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
I most certainly can
First you tell me I am not a conservative, now you tell me I am not a Christian
Well for your information I am both and utterly reject your narrow and bigoted views
My faith is not yours to judge, indeed neither are my politics
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
I most certainly can
First you tell me I am not a conservative, now you tell me I am not a Christian
Well for your information I am both and utterly reject your narrow and bigoted views
My faith is not yours to judge, indeed neither are my politics
"Police probing fraud claims involving fundraising against the SNP have passed a dossier of information to the Crown Office.
Officers investigating allegations that £600,000 of party funds raised by activists to continue the campaign for Scottish independence have “gone missing” say a progress report had been submitted before Nicola Sturgeon left office as First Minister.
Sturgeon previously rejected the claims, insisting she is “not concerned” about the party’s finances.
Police Scotland previously stated that a fraud allegation relating to the funds was “still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required”.
A formal investigation started in July 2021 after at least 19 criminal complaints were made."
Somehow I don’t think this dossier will be leaked to the Daily Record.
This is all quite depressing. Our kids are all fucked by lockdown. Every insect in the world is basically dead. Civil war is imminent almost everywhere
On the other hand, the SNP elected Humza Yousaf as leader
"Police probing fraud claims involving fundraising against the SNP have passed a dossier of information to the Crown Office.
Officers investigating allegations that £600,000 of party funds raised by activists to continue the campaign for Scottish independence have “gone missing” say a progress report had been submitted before Nicola Sturgeon left office as First Minister.
Sturgeon previously rejected the claims, insisting she is “not concerned” about the party’s finances.
Police Scotland previously stated that a fraud allegation relating to the funds was “still being assessed to determine if an investigation is required”.
A formal investigation started in July 2021 after at least 19 criminal complaints were made."
Somehow I don’t think this dossier will be leaked to the Daily Record.
I can believe everything in Scotland gets leaked for political advantage.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
i have to agree, not just year 7, but year 8.
I’m almost an anti-Leon, but there is definitely an uptick in teenagers have mental crises among the children of people I know.
Some of the stuff my daughters tell me about her friends suggests that family life has got screwed up for a fair few people. They directly link it to lock down, incidentally.
Why are you an anti leon? Genuine question
Do I have a kind of antimatter version of me? Will we explode if we meet?
PB did once have a Frank and an AntiFrank. Curiously they both disappeared at the same time.
Nice to see you back. Place definitely duller without your presences.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
i have to agree, not just year 7, but year 8.
I’m almost an anti-Leon, but there is definitely an uptick in teenagers have mental crises among the children of people I know.
Some of the stuff my daughters tell me about her friends suggests that family life has got screwed up for a fair few people. They directly link it to lock down, incidentally.
Why are you an anti leon? Genuine question
Do I have a mind of antimatter version of me? Will we explode if we meet?
When a particle collides with its antiparticle, both get annihilated.
The energy and momentum @Leon and @Malmesbury possessed must be conserved, so there is a burst of gamma rays.
And on the matter of gender identity, I commend this article
Sean Thomas says "My own name was associated with freelance journalism about art, sex and politics, and had the taint of literary failure. Also, it just wasn’t butch enough”
A name and a sex change were needed.
Thomas’s editor and agent were encouraging. He finally agreed that his books would be credited to SK Tremayne. “We were all in agreement. Partly for the reasons I state, but also because it arguably helps, these days, for fiction writers to be female, or at least not male.”
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
I most certainly can
First you tell me I am not a conservative, now you tell me I am not a Christian
Well for your information I am both and utterly reject your narrow and bigoted views
My faith is not yours to judge, indeed neither are my politics
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
i have to agree, not just year 7, but year 8.
I’m almost an anti-Leon, but there is definitely an uptick in teenagers have mental crises among the children of people I know.
Some of the stuff my daughters tell me about her friends suggests that family life has got screwed up for a fair few people. They directly link it to lock down, incidentally.
Why are you an anti leon? Genuine question
Do I have a kind of antimatter version of me? Will we explode if we meet?
PB did once have a Frank and an AntiFrank. Curiously they both disappeared at the same time.
Nice to see you back. Place definitely duller without your presences.
When I first noted antifrank I thought it was a comment on me.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
I most certainly can
First you tell me I am not a conservative, now you tell me I am not a Christian
Well for your information I am both and utterly reject your narrow and bigoted views
My faith is not yours to judge, indeed neither are my politics
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
I most certainly can
First you tell me I am not a conservative, now you tell me I am not a Christian
Well for your information I am both and utterly reject your narrow and bigoted views
My faith is not yours to judge, indeed neither are my politics
You are simply a sad bigoted person that has no empathy with the real teachings of Christ
I had years of debate in Lossiemouth between faiths, including the wee frees and brethren, and those extremist in these churches, like yourself, spent their entire life in bible studies dissecting every word in attempts to prove they were correct but only furthered division and eventually were dismissed as bigots by the many
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
That isn't a practical question. What will we do now? Is. I see no evidence of anything approaching the scale of the problems being suggested anywhere. What there is is focused almost solely on academic achievement. Which isn't the pressing, presenting issue at all.
It is ONE of the issues. The loneliness and lack of social skills - due to lockdowns ets - is also a massive problem. Mental illness is surging in young people
There is no easy answer. Dismissing these concerns as "old git typically worrying about young people" is somewhat puerile
I can only speak for our Year 7. I've seen classes out of control who make the teacher's lives a misery. Been there done that. Change teacher. Move the (usually a couple of) ringleaders. We have three classes. They are all awful. So you can't move anyone to improve things. And they are awful for everybody. Regardless. BUT. And here is the difference. A class out of control usually gets on reasonably well. They back each other up in an Us Vs Them situation. Our Year 7 also hate each other. They aren't making trouble to wind teachers up. They are doing it cos they can't get on. They don't even have cliques. Because they can't get on long enough to form one. They don't bully. Because they dislike each other on an Equal Opportunities basis. Never seen this before.
Obviously smart phones need to be banned from schools.
Our school recently sent out an email to parents reiterating that mobile phones needed to be handed in to the teacher at the beginning of the day. But they then added that this was also true for smart watches that had Internet capability.
Can smart watches work if the phone they are tagged to is switched off?
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
And yet Christian priests today are doing just that in some denominations. Funny that.
Only a handful of declining ones.
The growing ones like Pentecostals don't
Ah, so denominations which are declining no longer count as being Christian?
How does that affect yours?
Globally the Anglican Church is growing, especially in Africa.
It is only declining most in areas like Scotland, Wales and the USA where Anglican churches perform full homosexual marriages
Yes, but the long decline in outward religiosity in these countries long precedes gay marriage.
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
And yet Christian priests today are doing just that in some denominations. Funny that.
Only a handful of declining ones.
The growing ones like Pentecostals don't
Ah, so denominations which are declining no longer count as being Christian?
How does that affect yours?
Globally the Anglican Church is growing, especially in Africa.
It is only declining most in areas like Scotland, Wales and the USA where Anglican churches perform full homosexual marriages
So what you are saying is tolerant christianity is losing members
Hate filled bigoted types of christianity are growing
Bounced around a bit just before 1pm but now settled at:
Yousaf 1.34 Forbes 3.45
An extremely reliable source has told me the result of SNP leadership contest and the winner is
I was waiting until the leader was announced before congratulating Sir Keir Starmer on winning the SNP Leadership Election. I'm going to have to find a new joke... Oh wait, I found one, it's the new leader of the SNP!
Edit: That felt really harsh, actually. If I'd had a vote it would have gone to Humza (he can't be that bad!), though some of Forbes' ideas do intrigue me and I think she'd be a safe pair of hands - can't get past the gay (and other) stuff though.
Wait a goddam minute, I thought Forbes was the favoured candidate of New New Labour? I guess the great PB tradition of X or Y are both bad for the EssEnnPee is alive and well (won't bother with the laughable concept of Z Regan).
Speaking for Labour, and setting aside the independence question (on which I'm neutral), I don't think we care who wins. The key thing is that Sturgeon has gone. She was a formidable opponent, and her departure improves Labour's chances of making progress in Scotland, I think.
Although according to Hyufd Kate Forbes is a Scottish Ann Widdecombe in which case that has to help Labour.
Extraordinary. How can she stay in a party which overtly despises her and her beliefs?
Salmond's analysis of the SNP's self-destruction looks more accurate by the day
She got a pretty good vote from that very party. Excellent position for a future leadership attempt.
The members maybe, but not the MPs and MSPs and all the Sturgeonites. They hate her. And Yousaf will keep the party on the Wokey end of things,
I'm sure it was only ever a matter of time before people started defending anti-gay prejudice as a brave stand against "Wokeyness".
Anti-gay prejudice? Do you have a source for that? I think this might be one of these J.K.Rowling-type 'facts' which is similarly difficult to substantiate but nevertheless acquires momentum
To many gay people, being anti-gay marriage is anti-gay.
Saying “I personally oppose it, but wouldn’t do anything to change the status quo” doesn’t modify them.
How on earth is being anti gay marriage NOT being anti gay?
You do realise that giving people equal rights doesn't mean that it is compulsory for everyone to marry someone of the same sex? Nor does it make it illegal for people to still marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's like saying 'I personally don't think black people should be allowed in the same swimming pools as white people, but I wouldn't do anything to change the status quo' (because luckily you wouldn't succeed). Then being outraged that people think you are prejudiced.
As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children.
Making homosexuality illegal again or denying homosexual couples the right to form legal civil unions with each other might arguably be anti homosexual. Being anti homosexual marriage isn't
"Making homosexuality illegal ... might arguably be anti homosexual" [my emphasis]
You've posted some bizarre nonsense in your time, but this time words fail me.
Also according HYUFD "As marriage is a religious term and in the Koran and Bible based on a man and woman in lifelong union and creating and bringing up children."
There's quite a lot wrong with that. For example, the Koran allows a man to have up to 4 wives. To any sane person this is a far bigger difference compared to *marriage=one woman plus one man*, than the difference between *marriage=one woman plus one man* and *marriage=one adult plus another adult*
Well certainly in the Bible it is one man and woman for life for creation of children as Jesus attests
Many people, including many Christians, do not take the bible literally and just leave it to those who are bigoted to form views like yourself
Christ represented love and compassion not the intolerance you seem to portray
Christ made clear marriage was only for one man and one woman for life for the creation of children, you cannot contradict that as a Christian
This is not an area in which I have the slightest expertise, but my understanding is that most of the new testament was written 50 - 100 years after Christ and is certainly 2nd hand or more. So how can you be sure of Christ's exact words?
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
This is pure anecdote, but in my travels in the last two years I have noticed a remarkable absence of mosquitoes: everywhere
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
All that tonic water! Mosquitos have of course been very hard hit and deliberately so. I doubt the 45% figure. Also we never hear of new species that have arisen (apart from viruses).
I do notice that bugs on windscreens and are no longer the issue that they once were. A sign of the insect apocalypse?
In other news the human population of the world may peak with the next generation:
I'm not going to go into details, but there was a little medical emergency today. We rung up our local GP, who triaged the ill person and got us an emergency appointment with a GP 25-30 minutes drive away, in three hours time.
It's all sorted now; but I'm unsure whether to be shocked at the fact our local GP couldn't see us, or thankful that a GP somewhere else could. Or concerned that mobility is now such a benefit when accessing GP services - several of our friends could not have made it in time.
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
Why on earth would Yousaf pursue this so quickly when he saw how poisonous it was for Sturgeon?
Inexplicable
Its the Scottish Greens red line in the sand when it comes to carrying on their current coalition agreement, it also sadly means that Humza Yousaf will probable push on with the damaging shambles that passes for the SNP/SGreen Govs deposit return scheme.
Twitter Rhythm & Brews@RhythmBrewsUK First time I've seen "Not for sale in Scotland" on a beer label. Presumably this brewery has already decided it's not going to sign up to Scotland's incoming Deposit Return Scheme, and therefore won't be able to sell their beers up there. https://twitter.com/RhythmBrewsUK/status/1640045142399676421
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
This is pure anecdote, but in my travels in the last two years I have noticed a remarkable absence of mosquitoes: everywhere
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
I suspect it’s personal to you - they are repelled by the amount of alcohol you have consumed, oozing from your every pore while you lie there, comatose.
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
This is pure anecdote, but in my travels in the last two years I have noticed a remarkable absence of mosquitoes: everywhere
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
I suspect it’s personal to you - they are repelled by the amount of alcohol you have consumed, oozing from your every pore while you lie there, comatose.
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
This is pure anecdote, but in my travels in the last two years I have noticed a remarkable absence of mosquitoes: everywhere
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
I suspect it’s personal to you - they are repelled by the amount of alcohol you have consumed, oozing from your every pore while you lie there, comatose.
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
Re schools. Our Year 7 are positively awful. The worst single cohort I can remember in any school I've ever been in. Simply arguing that schools shouldn't have closed (they did), arguing for a few "catch-up" lessons (they won't do the ones they already have), whilst continuing to cut funding, and slash all medical and pastoral outside agencies isn't an answer at all. They need a huge targeted intervention. Which will be costly. Otherwise, very soon we'll have lost them for good.
I have a Uni lecturer friend who says the Covid cohort of undergrads are astonishingly under-educated, asocial, and awkward. They don't know how to interact, they lack basic knowledge and skills, they stare at their phones, they are lonely, graceless and sad
What have we done?
Dont forget from the perspective of a child our lockdowns lasted an astonishingly long time.
The first one was basically mar 24 2020 to when the pubs opened in early July. Then it was all masks in pubs and shops for a couple of months even though restirctions had eased. Then the 10pm curfew in September followed by the ridiculous tiers in October when areas like Greater Manchester went into lockdown again and other areas had severe restriction. Another full lockdown in November back to the tiers in December when again many areas were in basically full lockdown. The complete mess of xmas 2020 followed by the next lockdown in january which basically didnt end until mid April or late May depending on whether you enjoyed a pint in the cold. Then a further 2 months of masks in pubs and social distancing until late July with of course no nightclubs. Even after this masks in shops remained until probably April 2022 notwithstanding another attempt to lock us down in Dec 2021. See this time from the perspective of a child. Between 18 months and 2 years lost.
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
This is pure anecdote, but in my travels in the last two years I have noticed a remarkable absence of mosquitoes: everywhere
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
I suspect it’s personal to you - they are repelled by the amount of alcohol you have consumed, oozing from your every pore while you lie there, comatose.
Yeah, you might be onto something with the mosquitoes: while I was in Kerala in November/December, I did notice less of them around than the last time I was there. There were a couple of nights in December when the temperature was cool enough to turn the ceiling fans off where we stayed, and no mosquitoes took advantage to fly around the bedrooms.
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
Since 1980 about 45% of insect species have become extinct says Radio 4. If true that is quite an astonishing stat. Puts all other issues into perspective.
That is horrific. Probably rain-forest heavy in the extinction stakes, but we aren't covering ourselves in glory in Europe.
This is pure anecdote, but in my travels in the last two years I have noticed a remarkable absence of mosquitoes: everywhere
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
I suspect it’s personal to you - they are repelled by the amount of alcohol you have consumed, oozing from your every pore while you lie there, comatose.
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Yes.
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Fair enough, I can't remember what I was doing when Sunak became PM.
I was having lunch with JohnO in Claridge’s celebrating.
I was nearly delayed by Sunak’s motorcade.
My American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) were non-plussed at the lack on interest - where were the riots? the counter protests? - in Rishi becoming PM.
It's one of this things would have been a major story in other countries.
We had a non white PM, Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary, and the Chancellor was the only white Chancellor out of the last five.
This is all quite depressing. Our kids are all fucked by lockdown. Every insect in the world is basically dead. Civil war is imminent almost everywhere
On the other hand, the SNP elected Humza Yousaf as leader
HAHAHAHAHA
The trouble is that social media is designed to maximise revenue to a private business model that exploits and amplifies some of the worst traits in human psychology. Which then has serious real-world effect.
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
On another note, Beeching's report 'Reshaping of Britain's Railways' was published sixty years ago today.
I wonder how a contemporary PB would have discussed it? The Conservatives saying how necessary it was, whilst all the Labour people said they wouldn't enact the recommendations if they got power? (Only to enact them when they got power) ?
Meanwhile, old farts would be discussing how the shortening hemlines of girl's skirts meant that the Apocalypse was on its way...
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Yes.
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Fair enough, I can't remember what I was doing when Sunak became PM.
I was having lunch with JohnO in Claridge’s celebrating.
I was nearly delayed by Sunak’s motorcade.
My American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) were non-plussed at the lack on interest - where were the riots? the counter protests? - in Rishi becoming PM.
It's one of this things would have been a major story in other countries.
We had a non white PM, Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary, and the Chancellor was the only white Chancellor out of the last five.
A tribute to multiculturalism.
Two out of the last 5 CoEs were in post for less than 5 minutes between them, but an. Impressive tribute to multicultural Britain nonetheless.
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Yes.
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Fair enough, I can't remember what I was doing when Sunak became PM.
I was having lunch with JohnO in Claridge’s celebrating.
I was nearly delayed by Sunak’s motorcade.
My American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) were non-plussed at the lack on interest - where were the riots? the counter protests? - in Rishi becoming PM.
It's one of this things would have been a major story in other countries.
We had a non white PM, Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary, and the Chancellor was the only white Chancellor out of the last five.
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Yes.
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Fair enough, I can't remember what I was doing when Sunak became PM.
I was having lunch with JohnO in Claridge’s celebrating.
I was nearly delayed by Sunak’s motorcade.
My American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) were non-plussed at the lack on interest - where were the riots? the counter protests? - in Rishi becoming PM.
It's one of this things would have been a major story in other countries.
We had a non white PM, Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary, and the Chancellor was the only white Chancellor out of the last five.
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
Why on earth would Yousaf pursue this so quickly when he saw how poisonous it was for Sturgeon?
Inexplicable
Continuity Sturgeon, innit?
He has a decent chance of winning the case vs the UKG imo.
I don't think so. The UK government have utilised a statutory power which the Act gave them. It would have to be Wednesbury unreasonable for the court to interfere and it isn't. The Scottish legislation clearly has issues with the Equality Act and those differences should have been discussed with the UK Parliament but Nicola wanted a fight a lot more than she wanted the bill. It's just another waste of Scottish taxpayers money, just like the referendum bill nonsense was.
I don't think I've heard the word "Muslim" on the six o'clock news in a long time. Was the word Hindu mentioned this much when Sunak became Tory leader?
Yes.
Plus it was Diwali the next day.
Fair enough, I can't remember what I was doing when Sunak became PM.
I was having lunch with JohnO in Claridge’s celebrating.
I was nearly delayed by Sunak’s motorcade.
My American relatives (New York Democrats since before FDR) were non-plussed at the lack on interest - where were the riots? the counter protests? - in Rishi becoming PM.
It's one of this things would have been a major story in other countries.
We had a non white PM, Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary, and the Chancellor was the only white Chancellor out of the last five.
A tribute to multiculturalism.
Chicken Tikka all round, I say.
Now I'm sad about Robin Cook.
Damn you, memory!
Indians, Pakistanis and Nigerians are one things but gingers? There are limits.
The FM plans to go to court over the GRR Bill. This is a use of political time/energy with very limited support for a project which has failed to obtain popular backing. The man who here wants the FM to "put the people’s priorities first" will encourage that.
Humza Yousaf seems to want to start his first ministership with a silly, wasteful legal battle that he likely to lose. He's on notice - the women's groups that have opposed this stripping of our rights all the way will keep going. What a catastrophic unforced error from him
The GRR doesn't change the rules in this area. It just makes the process for obtaining a GRC easier. Single sex spaces aren't accessed or policed via possession of a GRC.
And don't people need to live as whatever for 2 years before they can get a GRC, or do I misunderstand?
Yes - and the bill reduces this to 3 months.
And removes the need for a medical diagnosis and the minimum age from 18 to 16.
Comments
From the Mediterranean to Vietnam, from Bangkok to Louisiana, from Montenegro to Cambodia. Places where you would normally expect to face real issues with mosquitoes, I have barely been bitten at all
Is it sheer coincidence? Of course in some ways it's very nice, mossies are a fucking nightmare, but in other ways it is apocalyptic, without insects the global ecosystem will collapse very fast
I've seen classes out of control who make the teacher's lives a misery. Been there done that.
Change teacher. Move the (usually a couple of) ringleaders.
We have three classes. They are all awful. So you can't move anyone to improve things.
And they are awful for everybody. Regardless.
BUT.
And here is the difference. A class out of control usually gets on reasonably well. They back each other up in an Us Vs Them situation.
Our Year 7 also hate each other.
They aren't making trouble to wind teachers up. They are doing it cos they can't get on. They don't even have cliques. Because they can't get on long enough to form one. They don't bully. Because they dislike each other on an Equal Opportunities basis.
Never seen this before.
One man one woman
One life to live together
One chance to take that never
Comes back again
"Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 45% (=)
CON: 30% (-5)
LDM: 10% (+3)
SNP: 4% (=)
GRN: 4% (=)
RFM: 4% (+1)
Via
@DeltapollUK
, 24-27 Mar.
Changes w/ 17-20 Mar."
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1640392438769393664
The growing ones like Pentecostals don't
How does that affect yours?
It is only declining most in areas like Scotland, Wales and the USA where Anglican churches perform full homosexual marriages
A great day for the Union, Hamza Useless will lead the SNP down a dead end.
Some of the stuff my daughters tell me about her friends suggests that family life has got screwed up for a fair few people. They directly link it to lock down, incidentally.
Do I have a kind of antimatter version of me? Will we explode if we meet?
First you tell me I am not a conservative, now you tell me I am not a Christian
Well for your information I am both and utterly reject your narrow and bigoted views
My faith is not yours to judge, indeed neither are my politics
dead. Civil war is imminent almost everywhere
On the other hand, the SNP elected Humza Yousaf as leader
HAHAHAHAHA
Nice to see you back. Place definitely duller without your presences.
The energy and momentum @Leon and @Malmesbury possessed must be conserved, so there is a burst of gamma rays.
And on the matter of gender identity, I commend this article
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/31/male-writers-hide-gender-sell-more-books
Sean Thomas says "My own name was associated with freelance journalism about art, sex and politics, and had the taint of literary failure. Also, it just wasn’t butch enough”
A name and a sex change were needed.
Thomas’s editor and agent were encouraging. He finally agreed that his books would be credited to SK Tremayne. “We were all in agreement. Partly for the reasons I state, but also because it arguably helps, these days, for fiction writers to be female, or at least not male.”
And why aren't you demanding the stoning of adulterers? Because it might be a bit embarrassing for your party?
I had years of debate in Lossiemouth between faiths, including the wee frees and brethren, and those extremist in these churches, like yourself, spent their entire life in bible studies dissecting every word in attempts to prove they were correct but only furthered division and eventually were dismissed as bigots by the many
Hate filled bigoted types of christianity are growing
Humza Yousaf, on the other hand ...
.@HumzaYousaf is the kid who just saw the skater in front of him disappear through the ice, but yells 'watch me, everybody!' while wobbling straight for the hole.
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1640414756916871175?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Why on earth would Yousaf pursue this so quickly when he saw how poisonous it was for Sturgeon?
Inexplicable
In other news the human population of the world may peak with the next generation:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/27/world-population-bomb-may-never-go-off-as-feared-finds-study
Problems for health and social care as well as the economy, but probably a good thing for the planet.
I'm not going to go into details, but there was a little medical emergency today. We rung up our local GP, who triaged the ill person and got us an emergency appointment with a GP 25-30 minutes drive away, in three hours time.
It's all sorted now; but I'm unsure whether to be shocked at the fact our local GP couldn't see us, or thankful that a GP somewhere else could. Or concerned that mobility is now such a benefit when accessing GP services - several of our friends could not have made it in time.
Twitter
Rhythm & Brews@RhythmBrewsUK
First time I've seen "Not for sale in Scotland" on a beer label. Presumably this brewery has already decided it's not going to sign up to Scotland's incoming Deposit Return Scheme, and therefore won't be able to sell their beers up there.
https://twitter.com/RhythmBrewsUK/status/1640045142399676421
This would sound silly in the age of Sturgeon/Salmond, but that iron discipline is gone. Only 52% - ouch.
The first one was basically mar 24 2020 to when the pubs opened in early July. Then it was all masks in pubs and shops for a couple of months even though restirctions had eased. Then the 10pm curfew in September followed by the ridiculous tiers in October when areas like Greater Manchester went into lockdown again and other areas had severe restriction. Another full lockdown in November back to the tiers in December when again many areas were in basically full lockdown. The complete mess of xmas 2020 followed by the next lockdown in january which basically didnt end until mid April or late May depending on whether you enjoyed a pint in the cold. Then a further 2 months of masks in pubs and social distancing until late July with of course no nightclubs. Even after this masks in shops remained until probably April 2022 notwithstanding another attempt to lock us down in Dec 2021. See this time from the perspective of a child. Between 18 months and 2 years lost.
We had a non white PM, Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary, and the Chancellor was the only white Chancellor out of the last five.
A tribute to multiculturalism.
The algorithms need statutory regulation.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1963-04-29/debates/7c2b20d2-6e98-4254-b7e0-0e78f5791897/Railways
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1963-04-30/debates/4a00b735-ea47-492e-affd-1e700cd980f8/Railways
Now I'm sad about Robin Cook.
Damn you, memory!