How many Tory by-election losses will revert back at GE2024? – politicalbetting.com

Eabhal said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

Will it be May or will it be October? I think Mr Sunak can surprise us all and go for mid-August or December 25. Don't rule out October 31 either. Mr Sunak is nothing if not a blue-sky thinker...

Christmas would work if we assume younger people are more likely to travel to older relatives than the other way round.

londonpubman said:

GIN1138 said:

IanB2 said:

ConHome’s Henry Hill:

Even in the wake of last week’s disastrous byelections, [Sunak’s] leadership seems secure, for the simple reason that nobody vying for the crown wants to seize it this side of the general election.

A good defence relies on making hard choices. Dig in against the Liberal Democrats in the “blue wall”, and stand accused of abandoning the new voters won over by Boris Johnson in 2019. Focus on boxing in the threat of Reform UK, and risk losing more voters to Labour and the Lib Dems, the parties actually positioned to take Conservative seats.

Then there’s timing….there are good reasons why a May election would suit the party. Coinciding with the local elections would not only probably save hundreds of Tory councillors, but also ensure that even activists unenthused by Sunak would be out anyway, fighting for their own seats.

[But Tories] are really gearing up for the almighty row that awaits if and when the Conservatives return to opposition. At its heart will be two related questions. First: how did the Tories manage to go from a historic landslide to what is shaping up to be a historic rout in a single parliament? Second: how did the party manage to spend nearly 15 years in office without managing to do much, beyond Brexit, to move the country in a more conservative direction?

Sunak does not really have a place in that battle. Not merely because it will only take place after an election defeat, but because he doesn’t have an ideological dog in the fight. There isn’t a Sunakism…the prime minister’s Treasury-minded managerialism will depart with him.

Until then, he has the thankless task of trying to salvage the best result possible in an extremely difficult election – a task that depends on forcing hard choices on a party that has proved congenitally incapable of confronting them. Again, no wonder there’s fresh talk of an election in May.

Interesting. Looks like a general election in May really could be in the works.

The country certainly needs it.

I have been saying 2 May on here all year and I am sticking with it 👍

Benpointer said:

Carnyx said:

Casino_Royale said:

Anabobazina said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It does seem a daft hoo-haa about office snacks FFS. Who cares? If you want a good dinner, go out to dinner.

I care greatly about the arrogance of someone else who has an ideology who presumes to pick on my behalf what I can and can't eat.

Remind me never to invite you to dinner. You'd probably complain about the pheasant casserole just because I chose it and you didn't. I'd want to save you from that trauma.

Can I take Casino's place? Pheasant casserole sounds great!

JosiasJessop said:

turbotubbs said:

Nigelb said:

turbotubbs said:

nico679 said:

I’ve yet to see a vegan who looks healthy . They’re always pasty looking and miserable . It’s really not a healthy lifestyle .

Novak Jokovic waves…

He's not a vegan.

Weird - I was sure he was! I stand corrected.

I think Lewis Hamilton's been vegan for a few years.

MattW said:

MattW said:

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

Andy_JS said:

I wonder how much money the average person has spent on smartphones since they were introduced in 2007.

I can answer that one for Apple iPhones (not Smartphones) which were the thing introduced in 2007, along with more gullible customers. 'Smartphones' in concept were probably the Nokia Communicator from 1996.

For iPhones, the site below have the price every year for each model from 2007 to 2021, and an average price iPhone each year added up to £9133 by 2021, so probably ~£11-12000 by 2024. That's ignoring inflation and interest.

https://repairoutlet.co.uk/blogs/news/the-changing-costs-of-apple-iphones

Do you know how much money Google makes in advertising from each user every year?

$300.

Think about that for a second.

Yep - sounds about right, subject to:

1 - The revenue comes from the advertiser, not the customer.
2 - The definition of a user sounds quite elastic.

Ad revenue in 2022 is quoted as $237.8bn, which at $300 average would imply 800 million "users".
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/

I think the services I get from Google are probably worth that much to me.

PS On the phones, I was heckled at Christmas because my Samsung S6 is apparently rather a lot of phone generations out of date.

Slightly newer second-hand phone required !

MattW said:

Andy_JS said:

I wonder how much money the average person has spent on smartphones since they were introduced in 2007.

I can answer that one for Apple iPhones (not Smartphones) which were the thing introduced in 2007, along with more gullible customers. 'Smartphones' in concept were probably the Nokia Communicator from 1996.

For iPhones, the site below have the price every year for each model from 2007 to 2021, and an average price iPhone each year added up to £9133 by 2021, so probably ~£11-12000 by 2024. That's ignoring inflation and interest.

https://repairoutlet.co.uk/blogs/news/the-changing-costs-of-apple-iphones

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

Stuartinromford said:

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

FF43 said:

The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.

1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public?
2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it.
3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.

On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.

It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.

It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.

Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.

I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.

He's certainly not taking it lying down...

This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.

Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the
Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the
time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...

https://x.com/Peston/status/1759649022665441424

No mention of who said it to him though?

Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".

Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive

So how would you have responded in her position?

And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?

I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.

Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.

I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.

*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.

AverageNinja said:

I would love to have a dinner party with some of you folks, we'd probably start WW3.

TimS said:

Eabhal said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

Will it be May or will it be October? I think Mr Sunak can surprise us all and go for mid-August or December 25. Don't rule out October 31 either. Mr Sunak is nothing if not a blue-sky thinker...

Christmas would work if we assume younger people are more likely to travel to older relatives than the other way round.

The whole British electoral thing of will they won’t they election timings is ridiculous.

I think it’s time for the CIA to intervene.
“We have credible intelligence from very close to the UK leadership that the decision has been made to call an election in May. This is supported by satellite images showing Conservative battalions massing in marginal constituencies in electoral formations.”

Anabobazina said:

AverageNinja said:

I would love to have a dinner party with some of you folks, we'd probably start WW3.

I don’t reckon we would. Most PBers are fine upstanding gentlemen (and ladies) I reckon, very nice IRL whatever their politics. I reckon even Pagan - the internet’s angriest man - is a pussy cat after a couple of glasses of decent claret.

MoonRabbit said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

Stuartinromford said:

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

FF43 said:

The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.

1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public?
2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it.
3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.

On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.

It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.

It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.

Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.

I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.

He's certainly not taking it lying down...

This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.

Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the
Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the
time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...

https://x.com/Peston/status/1759649022665441424

No mention of who said it to him though?

Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".

Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive

So how would you have responded in her position?

And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?

I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.

Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.

I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.

*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.

What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.

That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader

We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?

Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.

I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.

What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.

If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.

Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim
“Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.”
So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.

I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?

MoonRabbit said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

Stuartinromford said:

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

FF43 said:

The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.

1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public?
2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it.
3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.

On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.

It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.

It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.

Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.

I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.

He's certainly not taking it lying down...

This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.

Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the
Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the
time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...

https://x.com/Peston/status/1759649022665441424

No mention of who said it to him though?

Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".

Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive

So how would you have responded in her position?

And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?

I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.

Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.

I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.

*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.

What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.

That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader

We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?

Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.

I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.

What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.

If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.

Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim
“Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.”
So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.

I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?

Scott_xP said:

@chrish9070

#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons

https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1759681586964934746?s=20
…

Scott_xP said:

@chrish9070

#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons

https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1759681586964934746?s=20
…

DougSeal said:

TimS said:

Eabhal said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

Will it be May or will it be October? I think Mr Sunak can surprise us all and go for mid-August or December 25. Don't rule out October 31 either. Mr Sunak is nothing if not a blue-sky thinker...

Christmas would work if we assume younger people are more likely to travel to older relatives than the other way round.

The whole British electoral thing of will they won’t they election timings is ridiculous.

I think it’s time for the CIA to intervene.
“We have credible intelligence from very close to the UK leadership that the decision has been made to call an election in May. This is supported by satellite images showing Conservative battalions massing in marginal constituencies in electoral formations.”

Yes, ridiculous. Has anyone considered legislation to introduce fixed-term parliaments? Could work.

MoonRabbit said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

FF43 said:

FrankBooth said:

Stuartinromford said:

FF43 said:

Stuartinromford said:

FF43 said:

The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.

1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public?
2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it.
3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.

On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.

It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.

It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.

Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.

I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.

He's certainly not taking it lying down...

This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.

Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the
Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the
time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...

https://x.com/Peston/status/1759649022665441424

No mention of who said it to him though?

Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".

Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive

So how would you have responded in her position?

And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?

I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.

Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.

I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.

*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.

What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.

That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader

We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?

Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.

I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.

What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.

If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.

Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim
“Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.”
So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.

I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?

AverageNinja said:

Citizens assemblies from Labour, good policy.

Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.

AverageNinja said:

Citizens assemblies from Labour, good policy.

Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

He's almost certainly talking nonsense.

Whenever I've seen catering like this it's been the other way round: the meat options go quickly and the vegan stuff isn't touched.

The bigger problem is the virtue-signalling you now get with some organisations/events wanting to make statements by only ordering vegan/vegetarian food for everyone - I'm in a fight with one on this very matter right now. When this happens people leave early, and go and get their own food, don't come again or learn next time to buy and eat their own in advance; and it pisses a lot of people off.

Thankfully, I've done the opposite as an experiment: I organised a team social in a steak restaurant. We had 20 people in there, mostly under 30 years old, with unlimited cuts of beef and steak with red wine, and they absolutely loved it. The two vegetarians had their own thing, but the same fries, creamed spinach, peppers and red wine, and had no issue with it at all.

AlsoLei said:

GIN1138 said:

AverageNinja said:

Citizens assemblies from Labour, good policy.

Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.

I don't think much will come of "citizens assemblies"

As far as the triple lock is concerned, I think they'll probably keep it but start means testing it.

Do it on the same basis as UC, just without the requirement to work. Taper down support for people who are earning more than £631/month, or have more than £6k of assets.

It would be the single biggest thing we could do to reduce government spending, short of closing the NHS.

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

MoonRabbit said:

AverageNinja said:

Citizens assemblies from Labour, good policy.

Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.

I don’t like citizen assemblies. It’s rubbish.

Scott_xP said:

@chrish9070

#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons

https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1759681586964934746?s=20
…

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

viewcode said:

AlsoLei said:

Scott_xP said:

@chrish9070

#PostOfficeScandal 🔥BREAKING - Newly released document shows the minutes of the call between @KemiBadenoch & sacked @PostOffice chairman Henry Staunton. However Mr Staunton stands by his account & releases a full statement in response to the statement in👇 @HouseofCommons

https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1759681586964934746?s=20
…

This would appear to be the key bit:

"SoS noted that she had received a briefing on the governance issues at the Post Office and that the complaints against HS are so serious that the government need to intervene."

Not sure that that gives much support to either of their positions...

(ETA: and that's probably worse for Kemi than it is for HS)

"...Bernard, the minutes do not record everything that was said at a meeting... people change their minds during a meeting...the actual meeting is a mass of ingredients for you to choose from...you choose from a jumble of ill-digested ideas a version which represents the prime minister's views as he would on reflection have liked them to emerge...the purpose of minutes is not to record events, it is to protect people. You do not take notes. If the prime minister says something he did not mean to say, particularly if it contradicts something he has said publicly, you try to improve on what has been said to put it in a better order..."

"Official Secrets", Yes Prime Minister, Series 2, Episode 2, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-Qnv2Srfs

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

"I'm screaming at being offered a hummus and flatbread for lunch. It's my right to have 750g of meat every lunchtime."

That's what is coming over in this discussion.

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

algarkirk said:

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The polls are only going one way and I would venture to suggest Starmer's decision to scrap the 28 billion (£140 billion over 5 years) has been accepted as a wise decision and may indicate not everyone has a devotion to net zero

I see no way back for the conservatives and would prefer a May election but I just cannot see anything other than an Oct/ November one

It would be good to see it all over with, but I still think Rishi will hang on until the last minute!

No, because to do so would mean an election campaign that spanned the Christmas holidays - and the fury of the electorate. Autumn most likely I think.

Are we going astronomical autumn?

The winter solstice is December 21 this year.

The start of winter is odd. I think it is 21 Dec. Met office says 1 Dec. Ordinary conversation seems to align it to anytime from 1st November.

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

Good.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

stodge said:

AverageNinja said:

Citizens assemblies from Labour, good policy.

Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.

There's a difference between policy and politics.

Keeping the Triple Lock is good politics - Starmer knows he has to neutralise the huge advantage the Conservatives traditionally have among older voters. - those aged 65 and older voted 64% Conservative, 17% Labour. If Starmer can keep that lead down to 10-15 points, he'll be home and dry. Deltapoll has it at just two points - that's a 22.5% swing among the core Conservative vote. IF that happens on GE day, Conservative MPs will become an endangered species.

Once the election is won and 450-500 seats are in the bag, then we'll see what Starmer is really made of in terms of radically changing the country. Will he, for example, take on the gerontocracy and start to claw back pensioner benefits? He'll have a mandate if he has the will - the Conservatives will naturally be the pensioner's friend in Opposition butn they'll have to answer the awkward questions about we can afford such generous welfare benefits to a growing but largely unproductive part of the population.

Those who aren't fans of Starmer have already made it clear they see his position has pepetuating the management of decline but the Conservatives, if re-elected, will do nothing so how do we change?

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.

No, a dietary one.

I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.

https://www.wholesomeyum.com/low-carb-keto-chicken-crust-pizza-recipe/

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.

No, a dietary one.

I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.

https://www.wholesomeyum.com/low-carb-keto-chicken-crust-pizza-recipe/

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.

No, a dietary one.

I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.

https://www.wholesomeyum.com/low-carb-keto-chicken-crust-pizza-recipe/

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

Good.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

Good.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?

Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.

Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?

rottenborough said:

stodge said:

AverageNinja said:

Citizens assemblies from Labour, good policy.

Keeping the triple lock. Terrible policy from Labour.

There's a difference between policy and politics.

Keeping the Triple Lock is good politics - Starmer knows he has to neutralise the huge advantage the Conservatives traditionally have among older voters. - those aged 65 and older voted 64% Conservative, 17% Labour. If Starmer can keep that lead down to 10-15 points, he'll be home and dry. Deltapoll has it at just two points - that's a 22.5% swing among the core Conservative vote. IF that happens on GE day, Conservative MPs will become an endangered species.

Once the election is won and 450-500 seats are in the bag, then we'll see what Starmer is really made of in terms of radically changing the country. Will he, for example, take on the gerontocracy and start to claw back pensioner benefits? He'll have a mandate if he has the will - the Conservatives will naturally be the pensioner's friend in Opposition butn they'll have to answer the awkward questions about we can afford such generous welfare benefits to a growing but largely unproductive part of the population.

Those who aren't fans of Starmer have already made it clear they see his position has pepetuating the management of decline but the Conservatives, if re-elected, will do nothing so how do we change?

Hey, oldies, try not to fall over as you'll be waiting five hours for an ambulance and then spend twenty hours on a trolley in A&E corridor as the beds are blocked with dementia patients who cannot get social care.

But look on the bright side, we'll be bunking you another £800 a year soon.

What a f*cking country.

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.

No, a dietary one.

I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.

https://www.wholesomeyum.com/low-carb-keto-chicken-crust-pizza-recipe/

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.

No, a dietary one.

I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.

https://www.wholesomeyum.com/low-carb-keto-chicken-crust-pizza-recipe/

But on that logic you can easily have spinach and cheese for lunch, hold the chicken.

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

Good.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?

Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.

Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

Good.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?

Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.

Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?

What would you say to someone who used the same argument to justify eating cats?

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

Good.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?

Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.

Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?

You are not a carnivore.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.

No, a dietary one.

I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.

https://www.wholesomeyum.com/low-carb-keto-chicken-crust-pizza-recipe/

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

Where's the logic crime?

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.

Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.

Hardly a hardship.

How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.

An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.

No, a dietary one.

I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.

https://www.wholesomeyum.com/low-carb-keto-chicken-crust-pizza-recipe/

But on that logic you can easily have spinach and cheese for lunch, hold the chicken.

I could if I believed that is what should be eaten but its not. As I said, I do not eat vegetarian meals, ever.

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

LostPassword said:

148grss said:

turbotubbs said:

AverageNinja said:

Selebian said:

Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.

The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.

Woke doesn't mean anything.

How is being a vegan woke?

Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.

In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.

For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate?
You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.

You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.

Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.

Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.

On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.

As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.

It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.

Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?

I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.

It bloody is exclusionary and vile.

Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?

Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.

“999. What’s your emergency?”

“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."

"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."

Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.

If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.

People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.

Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.

Good.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?

If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.

Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?

Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.

Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?

You are not a carnivore.

How about I decide what I am, and you decide what you are?