No we Khan’t? Could the unthinkable happen in London? – politicalbetting.com

Cyclefree said:

I am so fed up with Chairs of organisations - Sir this that and the other getting paid oodles for chairing organisations they have no bloody clue about, where they never bother to do any work or ask any questions.

Honestly, there needs to be a special gulag for these ghastly lying self-satisfied overpaid arse-licking sloping-shouldered incompetents.

Sir Michael Hodgkinson can go there for a start.

And as for the David Smiths of this world - droning on about this that and the other like some dull dishrag: they should be sent to some farm to pick turnips which is all they're fit for.

Whilst I quite agree with you (and particularly in this case, with these people) - it seems that we are in danger of going full circle here. In public companies there is a strong push to have a separate Chairs and Chief Execs - to ensure appropriate checks and balance - as well as independent Non-Execs on boards who can (if they work well) genuinely challenge organisational groupthink and bring in outside thinking.

Which suggests that in my mind the issue isn't independent Chairs per se, or those who (when appointed) haven't come from the business - but the culture and attitude of those appointed and their willingness to challenge, to dig into things and be open and curious. Which makes it a much harder problem to solve systemically of course, as I don't see any way of 'enforcing' that type of appointment - as it goes to character, rather than structure or CV.

Lennon said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

On topic - it is startling quite how much Khan is underperforming the Lab party in R&W London polling. Changes since September.

Lab 51 (+4), Con 23 (-4), LD 13 (-4), G 7 (+3), Ref 5 (+1)
Khan 43 (+10), Hall 30 (-2), G 10 (+1), LD 8 (-8), Ref 7 (+3)

To me this suggests that this is is not an outlier poll. If these polls are as awry as last time then as TSE says there is much value in Hall. One caveat. The previous R&W poll had Khan only 1% ahead. So a 13% lead is not necessarily as skinny as it might appear. It really does raise the issue of candidate quality. Hall's choice may well cost the Cons a real chance at winning in London. I'm not sure what No 10 should fear most. Hall costing them a close election or Hall actually winning and feeling emboldened to speak 'her mind' in the run-up to the GE. That has chances to go all sorts of disastrous really quickly!

It's not startling if you live in London. Khan is a truly drreadful mayor. I don't know anyone that admires him (I am sure they exist but not in my circle, which is often quite bohemian and leftwing)

He's a vacuity. A nothing. He wins by default because the Tories are so utterly useless at picking contenders

I reckon a charismatic independent would have a chance; I am surprised no one has given it a go

Well, there is Count Binface - I'm hoping he gets more than the 1% he got last time, but it being FPTP this time may sink that.

Looking down the list of options I keep thinking he likely has my vote - for want of any positive sensible alternative at the moment. I can't bring myself to vote for either Khan or Hall, and what's the point giving the Lib or Green a tokenistic vote for Mayor - may as well vote Binface...

Remeber when Hangus the Monkey won in Hartlepool? No reason it can't happen. At the risk of focusing on what most people would deem the least interesting aspect of that episode, what system was that election fought under?

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

Do you ever worry about all your PB posts coming to light and getting cancelled by your publisher?

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

Do you ever worry about all your PB posts coming to light and getting cancelled by your publisher?

As a flint knapper and occasional writer for the Knappers' Gazette I'm not exactly high profile... also the flint world is deffo less Woke than most, it's positively Stone Age

kle4 said:

Stuartinromford said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

On topic - it is startling quite how much Khan is underperforming the Lab party in R&W London polling. Changes since September.

Lab 51 (+4), Con 23 (-4), LD 13 (-4), G 7 (+3), Ref 5 (+1)
Khan 43 (+10), Hall 30 (-2), G 10 (+1), LD 8 (-8), Ref 7 (+3)

To me this suggests that this is is not an outlier poll. If these polls are as awry as last time then as TSE says there is much value in Hall. One caveat. The previous R&W poll had Khan only 1% ahead. So a 13% lead is not necessarily as skinny as it might appear. It really does raise the issue of candidate quality. Hall's choice may well cost the Cons a real chance at winning in London. I'm not sure what No 10 should fear most. Hall costing them a close election or Hall actually winning and feeling emboldened to speak 'her mind' in the run-up to the GE. That has chances to go all sorts of disastrous really quickly!

It's not startling if you live in London. Khan is a truly drreadful mayor. I don't know anyone that admires him (I am sure they exist but not in my circle, which is often quite bohemian and leftwing)

He's a vacuity. A nothing. He wins by default because the Tories are so utterly useless at picking contenders

I reckon a charismatic independent would have a chance; I am surprised no one has given it a go

Khan made a dreadful mistake in deciding to run for a third term. At the time my belief was he thought Labour would lose again at the next GE and he would arguably be the most powerful elected Labour politician.

He could have stood down, Labour would have found a new candidate who would be 25-30 points ahead and Khan would be looking to become Labour MP for a safe constituency with a rapid step up to Cabinet likely.

Instead, he's floundering and Starmer and his cohorts will probably win a landslide and there'll be no place for Mayor Khan in their deliberations.

I'd argue the cretinous award can be shared between Khan and the London Conservatives.

You're not wrong about a charismatic independent but that would still require other parties to stand aside and that's easier said than done and said Independent would still have to deal with a GLA dominated by party politicians.

FPTP makes it harder for an interesting independent to break through, because it emphasises the idea of stopping the more undesirable of the big two by voting for the less undesirable of the big two.

Sadiq's problem is that, after eight years, his agenda is basically played out. I don't think he's been awful, but he's reached the "if it's such a good idea, why haven't you already done it?" stage that all governments reach after a while. London's problem is that it's not at all obvious who else is up for the job.

It may be unfair, but I cannot shake the feeling that going more than 2 terms in a mayoral job is a sign you have given up on other political career prospects.

It shouldn't even be allowed. There should be two term limits on London mayors

He's just squatting there, blocking anyone else. There are plenty of talented Labour politicians who would do a better job

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

Do you ever worry about all your PB posts coming to light and getting cancelled by your publisher?

He's a mere Spectator.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

As you know, I am a professional investigator. So partly because of that and partly because I am genuinely interested (and partly, I suppose, because I'm a sad nerdy sort of lawyer) I read all the reports on the now innumerable scandals this country throws up and I listen to the evidence and then I try and write illuminating articles about this here and on my website and elsewhere.

So to have the Post Office Inquiry restart and the Cass Review (which I will get round to reading in full) in the same week is a glut of riches (really a glut of shame and embarrassment and fury) but also a lot of work.

Plus I am doing an investigation in a large Asian country and oh dear the evidence is pointing to a lot of naughtiness so that's taking a bit of time too.

Still, this all takes my mind off the fact that it has now rained solidly for what must be longer than 40 days and 40 nights, it is still bloody raining and the garden has had quite enough - as have I - and that, shortly, I shall probably be afloat in the Irish Sea wondering where everyone is.

Oh and the sun. I remember seeing it once.

Sun came out for about an hour today, and I remembered what English springs used to be like

Nor are we imagining it, Britain has just experienced the wettest 18 months since records began, in 1836. It is quite remarkable, and awful for farmers

Which is why people who bemoan that we should be self-sufficient in food are utterly ridiculous.

Not only are we then subject to the seasonal problems that many months a year are not good for fresh harvest, or that we can't even grow certain food in this country, but then we are greater subject to the variances of nature.

Farmers in this country may be suffering due to the weather, but at least for our food supply we import a lot of our food which is less affected.

Diversity is important for minimising risk. Putting all your eggs in one basket, even your own basket, is rarely a good idea.

We have excellent weather for growing and rearing a huge variety food in the UK - there are few better climates for it. We need well-drained fields, well-maintained rivers, and up to date water infrastructure that (shock horror) manages to store water when it rains for use when it doesn't, rather than the current farce of veering from flood to drought and wondering what to do about it. Countries with actually problematical weather must think we're a bunch of utterly useless tosspots.

No. They all have their own problems with water: either too much, too little, or both. The idea that the UK is some utterly fuckwittedly country to a unique level just does not pass muster.

Take this very issue, and Germany:
https://www.dw.com/en/is-germany-facing-a-water-shortage-crisis/a-56309473
https://www.dw.com/en/water-scarcity-triggers-fierce-competition-also-in-germany/a-62942563

Or France:
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/down-to-earth/20230615-france-s-growing-water-crisis

Take river pollution: Paris is about to hold the Olympics, and this involved the triathlon swimming in the river. Except loads of swimmers got ill during the warm-up event last year; and there are significant doubts about the actual event this summer, despite over a billion having been spent cleaning up the water.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2024/04/10/paris-olympics-river-seine-clean-up-hit-by-dangerous-pollution-levels/

Whichever scandal you look at - even the Post Office - you will find similar scandals, if not identical, in other 'civilised' countries. Take Wirecard of DB in the German finance sector; or political scandals... well, everywhere.

That does not mean we shouldn't be better. But the idea we are somehow unique in these problems is idiotic.

After years of saying the Consevatives need to be destroyed, naturally, contrarian Peter Hitchens comes out for Con against LAB just as everyone is going to vote for Labour!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13293701/PETER-HITCHENS-Just-like-Blair-Starmer-disaster-Trying-punish-Tories-helping-power-like-bashing-head-lump-hammer.html

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

As you know, I am a professional investigator. So partly because of that and partly because I am genuinely interested (and partly, I suppose, because I'm a sad nerdy sort of lawyer) I read all the reports on the now innumerable scandals this country throws up and I listen to the evidence and then I try and write illuminating articles about this here and on my website and elsewhere.

So to have the Post Office Inquiry restart and the Cass Review (which I will get round to reading in full) in the same week is a glut of riches (really a glut of shame and embarrassment and fury) but also a lot of work.

Plus I am doing an investigation in a large Asian country and oh dear the evidence is pointing to a lot of naughtiness so that's taking a bit of time too.

Still, this all takes my mind off the fact that it has now rained solidly for what must be longer than 40 days and 40 nights, it is still bloody raining and the garden has had quite enough - as have I - and that, shortly, I shall probably be afloat in the Irish Sea wondering where everyone is.

Oh and the sun. I remember seeing it once.

Sun came out for about an hour today, and I remembered what English springs used to be like

Nor are we imagining it, Britain has just experienced the wettest 18 months since records began, in 1836. It is quite remarkable, and awful for farmers

Which is why people who bemoan that we should be self-sufficient in food are utterly ridiculous.

Not only are we then subject to the seasonal problems that many months a year are not good for fresh harvest, or that we can't even grow certain food in this country, but then we are greater subject to the variances of nature.

Farmers in this country may be suffering due to the weather, but at least for our food supply we import a lot of our food which is less affected.

Diversity is important for minimising risk. Putting all your eggs in one basket, even your own basket, is rarely a good idea.

We have excellent weather for growing and rearing a huge variety food in the UK - there are few better climates for it. We need well-drained fields, well-maintained rivers, and up to date water infrastructure that (shock horror) manages to store water when it rains for use when it doesn't, rather than the current farce of veering from flood to drought and wondering what to do about it. Countries with actually problematical weather must think we're a bunch of utterly useless tosspots.

No. They all have their own problems with water: either too much, too little, or both. The idea that the UK is some utterly fuckwittedly country to a unique level just does not pass muster.

Take this very issue, and Germany:
https://www.dw.com/en/is-germany-facing-a-water-shortage-crisis/a-56309473
https://www.dw.com/en/water-scarcity-triggers-fierce-competition-also-in-germany/a-62942563

Or France:
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/down-to-earth/20230615-france-s-growing-water-crisis

Take river pollution: Paris is about to hold the Olympics, and this involved the triathlon swimming in the river. Except loads of swimmers got ill during the warm-up event last year; and there are significant doubts about the actual event this summer, despite over a billion having been spent cleaning up the water.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2024/04/10/paris-olympics-river-seine-clean-up-hit-by-dangerous-pollution-levels/

Whichever scandal you look at - even the Post Office - you will find similar scandals, if not identical, in other 'civilised' countries. Take Wirecard of DB in the German finance sector; or political scandals... well, everywhere.

That does not mean we shouldn't be better. But the idea we are somehow unique in these problems is idiotic.

Good examples, but note that these countries are all under the EU's waterways directive and other directives which effectively ban new water infrastructure in favour of usage restrictions, as well as de facto banning the dredging of river beds. Water crises of various types are a inevitable under such a system and could be described as a feature not a bug. It's taking something we are blessed to have in abundance, and confecting a crisis out of it by legislation. It is loony, and even loonier that we've stuck with it after leaving.

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Stuartinromford said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

On topic - it is startling quite how much Khan is underperforming the Lab party in R&W London polling. Changes since September.

Lab 51 (+4), Con 23 (-4), LD 13 (-4), G 7 (+3), Ref 5 (+1)
Khan 43 (+10), Hall 30 (-2), G 10 (+1), LD 8 (-8), Ref 7 (+3)

To me this suggests that this is is not an outlier poll. If these polls are as awry as last time then as TSE says there is much value in Hall. One caveat. The previous R&W poll had Khan only 1% ahead. So a 13% lead is not necessarily as skinny as it might appear. It really does raise the issue of candidate quality. Hall's choice may well cost the Cons a real chance at winning in London. I'm not sure what No 10 should fear most. Hall costing them a close election or Hall actually winning and feeling emboldened to speak 'her mind' in the run-up to the GE. That has chances to go all sorts of disastrous really quickly!

It's not startling if you live in London. Khan is a truly drreadful mayor. I don't know anyone that admires him (I am sure they exist but not in my circle, which is often quite bohemian and leftwing)

He's a vacuity. A nothing. He wins by default because the Tories are so utterly useless at picking contenders

I reckon a charismatic independent would have a chance; I am surprised no one has given it a go

Khan made a dreadful mistake in deciding to run for a third term. At the time my belief was he thought Labour would lose again at the next GE and he would arguably be the most powerful elected Labour politician.

He could have stood down, Labour would have found a new candidate who would be 25-30 points ahead and Khan would be looking to become Labour MP for a safe constituency with a rapid step up to Cabinet likely.

Instead, he's floundering and Starmer and his cohorts will probably win a landslide and there'll be no place for Mayor Khan in their deliberations.

I'd argue the cretinous award can be shared between Khan and the London Conservatives.

You're not wrong about a charismatic independent but that would still require other parties to stand aside and that's easier said than done and said Independent would still have to deal with a GLA dominated by party politicians.

FPTP makes it harder for an interesting independent to break through, because it emphasises the idea of stopping the more undesirable of the big two by voting for the less undesirable of the big two.

Sadiq's problem is that, after eight years, his agenda is basically played out. I don't think he's been awful, but he's reached the "if it's such a good idea, why haven't you already done it?" stage that all governments reach after a while. London's problem is that it's not at all obvious who else is up for the job.

It may be unfair, but I cannot shake the feeling that going more than 2 terms in a mayoral job is a sign you have given up on other political career prospects.

It shouldn't even be allowed. There should be two term limits on London mayors

He's just squatting there, blocking anyone else. There are plenty of talented Labour politicians who would do a better job

Colour me intrigued. Any names you're thinking of? (The hard bit is why would they would want the job, if it involves stepping aside from Starmer's Glorious Reign.)

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

As you know, I am a professional investigator. So partly because of that and partly because I am genuinely interested (and partly, I suppose, because I'm a sad nerdy sort of lawyer) I read all the reports on the now innumerable scandals this country throws up and I listen to the evidence and then I try and write illuminating articles about this here and on my website and elsewhere.

So to have the Post Office Inquiry restart and the Cass Review (which I will get round to reading in full) in the same week is a glut of riches (really a glut of shame and embarrassment and fury) but also a lot of work.

Plus I Oh Godam doing an investigation in a large Asian country and oh dear the evidence is pointing to a lot of naughtiness so that's taking a bit of time too.

Still, this all takes my mind off the fact that it has now rained solidly for what must be longer than 40 days and 40 nights, it is still bloody raining and the garden has had quite enough - as have I - and that, shortly, I shall probably be afloat in the Irish Sea wondering where everyone is.

Oh and the sun. I remember seeing it once.

Sun came out for about an hour today, and I remembered what English springs used to be like

Nor are we imagining it, Britain has just experienced the wettest 18 months since records began, in 1836. It is quite remarkable, and awful for farmers

Which is why people who bemoan that we should be self-sufficient in food are utterly ridiculous.

Not only are we then subject to the seasonal problems that many months a year are not good for fresh harvest, or that we can't even grow certain food in this country, but then we are greater subject to the variances of nature.

Farmers in this country may be suffering due to the weather, but at least for our food supply we import a lot of our food which is less affected.

Diversity is important for minimising risk. Putting all your eggs in one basket, even your own basket, is rarely a good idea.

We have excellent weather for growing and rearing a huge variety food in the UK - there are few better climates for it. We need well-drained fields, well-maintained rivers, and up to date water infrastructure that (shock horror) manages to store water when it rains for use when it doesn't, rather than the current farce of veering from flood to drought and wondering what to do about it. Countries with actually problematical weather must think we're a bunch of utterly useless tosspots.

No. They all have their own problems with water: either too much, too little, or both. The idea that the UK is some utterly fuckwittedly country to a unique level just does not pass muster.

Take this very issue, and Germany:
https://www.dw.com/en/is-germany-facing-a-water-shortage-crisis/a-56309473
https://www.dw.com/en/water-scarcity-triggers-fierce-competition-also-in-germany/a-62942563

Or France:
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/down-to-earth/20230615-france-s-growing-water-crisis

Take river pollution: Paris is about to hold the Olympics, and this involved the triathlon swimming in the river. Except loads of swimmers got ill during the warm-up event last year; and there are significant doubts about the actual event this summer, despite over a billion having been spent cleaning up the water.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2024/04/10/paris-olympics-river-seine-clean-up-hit-by-dangerous-pollution-levels/

Whichever scandal you look at - even the Post Office - you will find similar scandals, if not identical, in other 'civilised' countries. Take Wirecard of DB in the German finance sector; or political scandals... well, everywhere.

That does not mean we shouldn't be better. But the idea we are somehow unique in these problems is idiotic.

Good examples, but note that these countries are all under the EU's waterways directive and other directives which effectively ban new water infrastructure in favour of usage restrictions, as well as de facto banning the dredging of river beds. Water crises of various types are a inevitable under such a system and could be described as a feature not a bug. It's taking something we are blessed to have in abundance, and confecting a crisis out of it by legislation. It is loony, and even loonier that we've stuck with it after leaving.

It's f-all to do with the EU.

Seriously. It's also little to do with dredging. It's to do with a complex multi-factorial combination of factors, including things like expanding populations, improved water quality regulations, increased cost of improvements, climate change / changing weather patterns, bureaucratic indifference/inertia, water usage requirements, changing land usage patterns (including development), environmental regulations, etc, etc.

Leon said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is?
I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.

I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?

For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things

Tracing the money is often a good idea, but I think as well sometimes plain overreach happens.

Gay and lesbian men and women absolutely were wrongly denied rights for a very long time and the likes of Stonewall until 2014 were absolutely in the right and their opponents in the wrong.

However rather than claim victory and disband, there then became a case of "what now" and with no major legitimate battles left to win, this mistake became the raison d'etre instead. And since those of us who are socially liberal had sided with them until now, it wasn't immediately obvious what was happening.

Kudos to the likes of Rowling and Bindel who were the canaries in the coal mine.

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

Do you ever worry about all your PB posts coming to light and getting cancelled by your publisher?

There was another writer, Shawn something or other, who got rather panicked a while back. But I think anonymity is the way ahead. And definitely NOT posting the same photos on PB as an alleged stalker does on Twitter.

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is?
I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.

I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?

For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things

Did you read Lionel Shriver's article in Unherd the other day about collective mania? A good piece, though there was a lot in there I thought "yes, but..." too.
But cui bono, I've often wondered that too. I remember a couole of years back being startled at quite how much American medical companies were making out of all this and deciding that they probably bono'd, but that's little more than a "someone must be benefitting from this". Otherwise, a lucky play by Chinese/Russian stirrers crying to create division (cf: abuse at England football penalty takers).

Yes, the Chinese and the Russians have likely stirred the social media pot, just as they do with western racial divisions. They take our strengths - liberalism, pluralism, open borders, relatively free speech - and turn them against us

Isn't woke an AngloSaxon thing? Do they have these issues in other countries?

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

Omnium said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

I saw something really chilling today. No it wasn't UFOs or AIs or Putinbots. It was people OBVIOUSLY strung out on Fentanyl on the streets of Camden. I've seen Fent addicts in America and they are unmistakeable, the zombie gait, the juddering limbs, the vacant eyes - or the way they can lie stock still for hours on cold hard concrete in the middle of the day.

It's here, and it's BAD. America has 100,000 overdose deaths a year. If Britain goes down the same road, we will see 20,000 deaths a year, plus all the attendant social and medical ills. The NHS will get crushed. And this will happen all across Europe

And I am not imagining it in some fever dream

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/tranq-dope-zombies-fill-streets-32532478

At least it makes them better able to cope with living in Camden.

I tried living in Islington once - which is a sort of Camden starter meal. I didn't much like it.

It wasn't great seeing Parkway full of gibbering psychos, it was like PB turned into a shopping street. Nor is it going to be great for property prices around here, not many people want to live in an episode of The Walking Dead

The council should round them all up on buses and then deposit them outside parliament - it might get MPs to take serious notice. Best to do it on a day when there are lots of outside broadcast people for some big parliament thingy.

Is Fentanyl the same as spice? Manchester had a real problem with spiceheads a few years back. They hung around Piccadilly Gardens standing stock still, stooped, staring at the floor. You don't see them as much nowadays. I don't know if this is due to anything anyone has done.

I think I'm too innocent.

Any time I've had spice in Manchester I've simply enjoyed a good meal.

Simply the only spice worth bothering with:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XgoKfHg1JsU&pp=ygUPbWkgY2hpY28gbGF0aW5v

Recreate that on the boat today and you'll get this.

geoffw said:

Isn't woke an AngloSaxon thing? Do they have these issues in other countries?

Increasingly, yes

Sadly we are at the cutting edge but we are infecting others. India is weirdly Woke, for instance

Basically all cultures are downstream of Anglophone culture

Cyclefree said:

Selebian said:

viewcode said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

...Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded....

This raises an interesting question. Much of the discussion about the Tavistock revolves around the number of children (and young adults?) who were *referred* to it. But little has been discussed about the number that were *treated* whilst children (if any?). I'm not even sure if that number is available: see my and Selebian's disquiet about the paucity of data. We should have RollsRoyce data but given the prediction of trans people to demand deletion of their data, and the resistance of the clinics to supply it, we are groping in the dark. It is ironic that Americans can reduce the number of CYAs who were treating by backtracking the insurance claims and scrips, but the Brits who have a NHS can only go "um".

Part of this is due to perceptions of the review and the leaking from people 'close to' then health sec Javid that the purpose of getting the data was to prove the wrongdoing of the tavistock.

That would have been a terrible approach to research, if true, but it's not surprising that it stiffened resistance and prompted many transgender people to opt out of what they considered to be an exercise is shutting down their treatments. Javid or the people close to him have responsibility for that.

I'm sorry but that's the same sort of bullshit we've been getting from the Post Office as to why they wouldn't look at Horizon. "Oh it's just a lot of crooked SPMs trying to blame it so we won't make any inquiries, we'll stall them and refuse to engage."

If you genuinely believe what you are doing is in the best interests of patients and you have the data to prove it you engage. Instead they didn't which suggests that maybe what you're doing is not a good idea and/or you don't have the data. Either way it destroys trust.

Both are probably true of those uncooperative at GIDS.

But the young transgender people who felt they'd been well served by the tavistock opted out of what they saw, reasonably given the comments from close to Javid, as a witch hunt

Taz said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Stuartinromford said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

On topic - it is startling quite how much Khan is underperforming the Lab party in R&W London polling. Changes since September.

Lab 51 (+4), Con 23 (-4), LD 13 (-4), G 7 (+3), Ref 5 (+1)
Khan 43 (+10), Hall 30 (-2), G 10 (+1), LD 8 (-8), Ref 7 (+3)

To me this suggests that this is is not an outlier poll. If these polls are as awry as last time then as TSE says there is much value in Hall. One caveat. The previous R&W poll had Khan only 1% ahead. So a 13% lead is not necessarily as skinny as it might appear. It really does raise the issue of candidate quality. Hall's choice may well cost the Cons a real chance at winning in London. I'm not sure what No 10 should fear most. Hall costing them a close election or Hall actually winning and feeling emboldened to speak 'her mind' in the run-up to the GE. That has chances to go all sorts of disastrous really quickly!

It's not startling if you live in London. Khan is a truly drreadful mayor. I don't know anyone that admires him (I am sure they exist but not in my circle, which is often quite bohemian and leftwing)

He's a vacuity. A nothing. He wins by default because the Tories are so utterly useless at picking contenders

I reckon a charismatic independent would have a chance; I am surprised no one has given it a go

Khan made a dreadful mistake in deciding to run for a third term. At the time my belief was he thought Labour would lose again at the next GE and he would arguably be the most powerful elected Labour politician.

He could have stood down, Labour would have found a new candidate who would be 25-30 points ahead and Khan would be looking to become Labour MP for a safe constituency with a rapid step up to Cabinet likely.

Instead, he's floundering and Starmer and his cohorts will probably win a landslide and there'll be no place for Mayor Khan in their deliberations.

I'd argue the cretinous award can be shared between Khan and the London Conservatives.

You're not wrong about a charismatic independent but that would still require other parties to stand aside and that's easier said than done and said Independent would still have to deal with a GLA dominated by party politicians.

FPTP makes it harder for an interesting independent to break through, because it emphasises the idea of stopping the more undesirable of the big two by voting for the less undesirable of the big two.

Sadiq's problem is that, after eight years, his agenda is basically played out. I don't think he's been awful, but he's reached the "if it's such a good idea, why haven't you already done it?" stage that all governments reach after a while. London's problem is that it's not at all obvious who else is up for the job.

It may be unfair, but I cannot shake the feeling that going more than 2 terms in a mayoral job is a sign you have given up on other political career prospects.

It shouldn't even be allowed. There should be two term limits on London mayors

He's just squatting there, blocking anyone else. There are plenty of talented Labour politicians who would do a better job

Colour me intrigued. Any names you're thinking of? (The hard bit is why would they would want the job, if it involves stepping aside from Starmer's Glorious Reign.)

Ed Balls

Why would he bother. He’s got a rather good career now in TV and, unlike his political persona, he comes over as a decent sort.

For the sake of political balance for fear of offending the guy with the Herbie car as an avatar I’d say the same of Portillo and his trains (not trans for fear of triggering Heathener)

I was just citing someone in Labour circles that I believe would 1. be a nice change from Khan and 2. bring fresh ideas (Balls is a clever man) and 3. allow us to make pathetic puns on his surname and 4. be highly electable (I could see myself voting for Balls) and 5. maybe even be a good, charismatic mayor, which London desperately needs after the overcast greyness of the miserable Khan

My point is: these people exist

geoffw said:

Isn't woke an AngloSaxon thing? Do they have these issues in other countries?

No, it's a populist right thing.

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

As you know, I am a professional investigator. So partly because of that and partly because I am genuinely interested (and partly, I suppose, because I'm a sad nerdy sort of lawyer) I read all the reports on the now innumerable scandals this country throws up and I listen to the evidence and then I try and write illuminating articles about this here and on my website and elsewhere.

So to have the Post Office Inquiry restart and the Cass Review (which I will get round to reading in full) in the same week is a glut of riches (really a glut of shame and embarrassment and fury) but also a lot of work.

Plus I Oh Godam doing an investigation in a large Asian country and oh dear the evidence is pointing to a lot of naughtiness so that's taking a bit of time too.

Still, this all takes my mind off the fact that it has now rained solidly for what must be longer than 40 days and 40 nights, it is still bloody raining and the garden has had quite enough - as have I - and that, shortly, I shall probably be afloat in the Irish Sea wondering where everyone is.

Oh and the sun. I remember seeing it once.

Sun came out for about an hour today, and I remembered what English springs used to be like

Nor are we imagining it, Britain has just experienced the wettest 18 months since records began, in 1836. It is quite remarkable, and awful for farmers

Which is why people who bemoan that we should be self-sufficient in food are utterly ridiculous.

Not only are we then subject to the seasonal problems that many months a year are not good for fresh harvest, or that we can't even grow certain food in this country, but then we are greater subject to the variances of nature.

Farmers in this country may be suffering due to the weather, but at least for our food supply we import a lot of our food which is less affected.

Diversity is important for minimising risk. Putting all your eggs in one basket, even your own basket, is rarely a good idea.

We have excellent weather for growing and rearing a huge variety food in the UK - there are few better climates for it. We need well-drained fields, well-maintained rivers, and up to date water infrastructure that (shock horror) manages to store water when it rains for use when it doesn't, rather than the current farce of veering from flood to drought and wondering what to do about it. Countries with actually problematical weather must think we're a bunch of utterly useless tosspots.

No. They all have their own problems with water: either too much, too little, or both. The idea that the UK is some utterly fuckwittedly country to a unique level just does not pass muster.

Take this very issue, and Germany:
https://www.dw.com/en/is-germany-facing-a-water-shortage-crisis/a-56309473
https://www.dw.com/en/water-scarcity-triggers-fierce-competition-also-in-germany/a-62942563

Or France:
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/down-to-earth/20230615-france-s-growing-water-crisis

Take river pollution: Paris is about to hold the Olympics, and this involved the triathlon swimming in the river. Except loads of swimmers got ill during the warm-up event last year; and there are significant doubts about the actual event this summer, despite over a billion having been spent cleaning up the water.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2024/04/10/paris-olympics-river-seine-clean-up-hit-by-dangerous-pollution-levels/

Whichever scandal you look at - even the Post Office - you will find similar scandals, if not identical, in other 'civilised' countries. Take Wirecard of DB in the German finance sector; or political scandals... well, everywhere.

That does not mean we shouldn't be better. But the idea we are somehow unique in these problems is idiotic.

Good examples, but note that these countries are all under the EU's waterways directive and other directives which effectively ban new water infrastructure in favour of usage restrictions, as well as de facto banning the dredging of river beds. Water crises of various types are a inevitable under such a system and could be described as a feature not a bug. It's taking something we are blessed to have in abundance, and confecting a crisis out of it by legislation. It is loony, and even loonier that we've stuck with it after leaving.

It's f-all to do with the EU.

Seriously. It's also little to do with dredging. It's to do with a complex multi-factorial combination of factors, including things like expanding populations, improved water quality regulations, increased cost of improvements, climate change / changing weather patterns, bureaucratic indifference/inertia, water usage requirements, changing land usage patterns (including development), environmental regulations, etc, etc.

You contradict yourself in the one paragraph. You cite environmental regulations and it's precisely those regulations that I am holding responsible. I appreciate that you feel very firmly that you're right and I'm on a hobby horse, but I've read the legislation, and I have seen it in effect, as have other PBers. Ask Malmesbury how easy or otherwise it is even to fill a gravel pit with water to turn it into a useful mere in the UK these days. Ask anyone how many hoops you have to jump through just to dredge a river.

Cookie said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is?
I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.

I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?

For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things

Tracing the money is often a good idea, but I think as well sometimes plain overreach happens.

Gay and lesbian men and women absolutely were wrongly denied rights for a very long time and the likes of Stonewall until 2014 were absolutely in the right and their opponents in the wrong.

However rather than claim victory and disband, there then became a case of "what now" and with no major legitimate battles left to win, this mistake became the raison d'etre instead. And since those of us who are socially liberal had sided with them until now, it wasn't immediately obvious what was happening.

Kudos to the likes of Rowling and Bindel who were the canaries in the coal mine.

Yes that's part of it too. Stonewall and Mermaids have been seriously bad actors

I have personally witnessed the trauma of this in several families

Me too. It's astonishingly widespread.
I know three trans kids, all peera of my oldest daughter. One (born male) is seriously disturbed and wanted to dress in girls' clothes from as soon as he could express a preference. Hard to put that down to a social mania, though maybe he'd have had different treatment in a different age. But one (born female) was simply awkward in her own skin and very eaaily led, and one (born male) is probably just gay.

A lot of it is suppressed gayness - or autism, misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria, or simply teenage hormones and moodiness

One little-known fact is that the "trans children issue" affects Muslim families quite badly, because highly conservative Muslims would rather have a transexual child than a gay child. Cf Iran

"Why Iran is a hub for sex-reassignment surgery"

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/04/04/why-iran-is-a-hub-for-sex-reassignment-surgery

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Isn't woke an AngloSaxon thing? Do they have these issues in other countries?

Increasingly, yes

Sadly we are at the cutting edge but we are infecting others. India is weirdly Woke, for instance

Basically all cultures are downstream of Anglophone culture

India isn't woke - it's got the bloody Caste System!

It's a weird mix of Wokeness and medieval religion

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2024/01/wokeism-with-indian-characteristics/

And now, I must go and cook a laksa. Manana

Cookie said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is?
I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.

I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?

For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things

Tracing the money is often a good idea, but I think as well sometimes plain overreach happens.

Gay and lesbian men and women absolutely were wrongly denied rights for a very long time and the likes of Stonewall until 2014 were absolutely in the right and their opponents in the wrong.

However rather than claim victory and disband, there then became a case of "what now" and with no major legitimate battles left to win, this mistake became the raison d'etre instead. And since those of us who are socially liberal had sided with them until now, it wasn't immediately obvious what was happening.

Kudos to the likes of Rowling and Bindel who were the canaries in the coal mine.

Yes that's part of it too. Stonewall and Mermaids have been seriously bad actors

I have personally witnessed the trauma of this in several families

Me too. It's astonishingly widespread.
I know three trans kids, all peera of my oldest daughter. One (born male) is seriously disturbed and wanted to dress in girls' clothes from as soon as he could express a preference. Hard to put that down to a social mania, though maybe he'd have had different treatment in a different age. But one (born female) was simply awkward in her own skin and very eaaily led, and one (born male) is probably just gay.

I think the problem is trying to put a label on things which ironically then is less tolerant and tries to pigeon hole people.

Why is a boy who wants to dress in "girls clothes" trans and not simply a boy who dresses in dresses?

Why is a girl who loves a girl a boy, rather than a lesbian?

Why is a girl who loves football, power tools and wrestling a boy, rather a girl who loves football, power tools and wrestling.

Trying to force people into male or female stereotypes is very intolerant.

...

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Isn't woke an AngloSaxon thing? Do they have these issues in other countries?

Increasingly, yes

Sadly we are at the cutting edge but we are infecting others. India is weirdly Woke, for instance

Basically all cultures are downstream of Anglophone culture

India isn't woke - it's got the bloody Caste System!

It's a weird mix of Wokeness and medieval religion

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2024/01/wokeism-with-indian-characteristics/

And now, I must go and cook a laksa. Manana

Why did the Indian cross the road?

His astrologer told him it was an auspicious time and place to do so!

(I thank you!)

May Russell Grant you forgiveness for that one.

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Any reason why the chap alleged to have murdered his wife in Bradford wasn’t called her husband at all during the man hunt? The phrase ‘known to her’ seems odd when it’s your bloody husband! I cannot see a valid reason for not saying the relationship. Anyone?

https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68781650

He's her husband?!

All stories of murders by Muslims are strangely tiptoed around. I mean, the story from Hartlepool of the Moroccan asylum seeker who murdered a pensioner in support of Palestine for example - has that really taken six months to light?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-68788594.amp

I had kind of assumed he was her partner, but why has it taken 6 days to get that he was her husband?

StillWaters said:

Cyclefree said:

I am so fed up with Chairs of organisations - Sir this that and the other getting paid oodles for chairing organisations they have no bloody clue about, where they never bother to do any work or ask any questions.

Honestly, there needs to be a special gulag for these ghastly lying self-satisfied overpaid arse-licking sloping-shouldered incompetents.

Sir Michael Hodgkinson can go there for a start.

And as for the David Smiths of this world - droning on about this that and the other like some dull dishrag: they should be sent to some farm to pick turnips which is all they're fit for.

i

Sounds like you should get yourself of the board of some organisation devoted to social impact and (gently) hold the chair’s feet to the fire…

It is on my ever-increasing To Do List, I promise - I will get to it this weekend.

isam said:

Unreal from OJ Simpson here

Ruby Wax conducted several mind-blowing interviews over the years, and this one is among the most shocking and revealing 😱 Ruby Wax meets… OJ SIMPSON 🥴 This clip is from Ruby’s brilliant 2023 BBC special exploring her most memorable interviews.

https://x.com/dog_head/status/1778497630168813676?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

As I recall he pretended to stab her at the end.

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Any reason why the chap alleged to have murdered his wife in Bradford wasn’t called her husband at all during the man hunt? The phrase ‘known to her’ seems odd when it’s your bloody husband! I cannot see a valid reason for not saying the relationship. Anyone?

https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68781650

Only guessing here but possibly because it wasn't relevant to the manhunt?

Once they've got him in custody, then everything that needs saying can be said, but while he's at large presumably only worth saying the critical bits that need to be said. Extraneous information can be a distraction.

Considering the manhunt ended with his successful apprehension, I don't question the tactics used to find and arrest him.

And yet I suspect if he was a white chap who had murdered his wife it would have been front and centre. Maybe I’m wrong?

Cookie said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is?
I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.

The suggestion that there is something that reality "very obviously is", if correct, will solve a puzzle that has mystified people as diverse as Socrates, Buddha, Einstein, Russell, Kant, Hume, St Paul as well as, I imagine, most readers of PB. Do let the rest of us into the secret.

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Any reason why the chap alleged to have murdered his wife in Bradford wasn’t called her husband at all during the man hunt? The phrase ‘known to her’ seems odd when it’s your bloody husband! I cannot see a valid reason for not saying the relationship. Anyone?

https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68781650

Only guessing here but possibly because it wasn't relevant to the manhunt?

Once they've got him in custody, then everything that needs saying can be said, but while he's at large presumably only worth saying the critical bits that need to be said. Extraneous information can be a distraction.

Considering the manhunt ended with his successful apprehension, I don't question the tactics used to find and arrest him.

And yet I suspect if he was a white chap who had murdered his wife it would have been front and centre. Maybe I’m wrong?

I don't see any reason for that suspicion.

From what I've observed in the past, when a manhunt is on, then typically the individuals specifics are given and not much else.

Only post-arrest does more come out. This seems standard practice to me, its not like its being covered up, as its openly said now he's safely in custody. 🤷‍♂️

I’m sorry, but I just think it’s weird.

Leon said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is?
I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.

I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?

For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things

I think in part it's technological. Just as the printing press caused some very odd upheavals when it was invented, the internet has similar effects. In this case it's that some interesting as conjecture, but eminently contestable, philosophical theory leaked from academia to become widely accepted 'fact' in influential circles - which of course then spreads it to wider society.

You can detect a change in the approach to the subject in the early 2010s - i.e. the first point you had people who'd matured on social media beginning to hold actual positions of power. I've seen it described as the 'Tumblrisation' of politics. As a theory, the idea that identity trumps material restrictions is also superficially attractive and explicative - especially to those who don't naturally fit in. So it spreads. Clever people begin constructing arguments in its favour and sharing them. It becomes accepted and institutions treat it as a basis for real-world decisions like medical treatment.

The problem being that in the past, it took quite a long time for this to happen - by which time we've tested an idea's flaws and drawbacks, and ironed out problems. There's an extensive body of evidence to draw conclusions from by the time it's adopted as unimpeachable fact that we make policy decisions from rather than an interesting theory. But things now spread much faster owing to ideas going viral happening far quicker, before that process has taken place or our understanding has advanced.

Which led to a situation where some very radical positions compared to what was previously thought became settled 'fact' it was apparently socially unacceptable to challenge before they've been moderated and tested.

You also have a feedback loop where online anyone can seek out their own facts that support their position and ignore anything that doesn't - which sets people at odds and calcifies their positions, worsening the problem - as the process of challenge and moderation just doesn't happen.

Worryingly you can see a similar process on a lot of issues on all parts of the political spectrum.

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Any reason why the chap alleged to have murdered his wife in Bradford wasn’t called her husband at all during the man hunt? The phrase ‘known to her’ seems odd when it’s your bloody husband! I cannot see a valid reason for not saying the relationship. Anyone?

https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68781650

Only guessing here but possibly because it wasn't relevant to the manhunt?

Once they've got him in custody, then everything that needs saying can be said, but while he's at large presumably only worth saying the critical bits that need to be said. Extraneous information can be a distraction.

Considering the manhunt ended with his successful apprehension, I don't question the tactics used to find and arrest him.

And yet I suspect if he was a white chap who had murdered his wife it would have been front and centre. Maybe I’m wrong?

I don't see any reason for that suspicion.

From what I've observed in the past, when a manhunt is on, then typically the individuals specifics are given and not much else.

Only post-arrest does more come out. This seems standard practice to me, its not like its being covered up, as its openly said now he's safely in custody. 🤷‍♂️

I’m sorry, but I just think it’s weird.

It really isn't. It's standard practice, in a manhunt, to be really limited - this is the man we are hunting, and this is what you do if you see him. Further details are revealed when you have him in custody or, sometimes, to keep the matter in the news if you don't.

So suppose they'd not got him this week. The story next week is "Prime suspect is victim's hubby, cops reveal". It's sad, but that's news whereas "Victim's husband still at large" isn't.

Cookie said:

Leon said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Sir Michael Hodgkinson seems a wrong 'un.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues

Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject

https://order-order.com/2024/04/11/sky-trans-activist-staff-demand-sky-news-editorial-veto/

Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth.
I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.

Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.

Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.

Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?

These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen

Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...

Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).

Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?

IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her

Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast

While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is?
I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.

You do them an injustice. Right from the start the treatment of children was being raised by them and female whistleblowers at GIDS: Sue Evans and Sonia Appleby. Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend also spoke up. Hannah Barnes and Helen Joyce also raised the question of how children were being treated and the absolutely malicious behaviour of Mermaids and others like Stonewall who talked utter balls about the subject.

They weren't being listened to because no-one wanted to hear what the concerns were and consider them fairly and dispassionately. No-one wanted to hear the homophobia in telling children the majority of whom - even according to GIDs own data and Mermaids in the early days before Susie Green got hold of it - were likely to be gay that no they must be "trans" rather than accept their sexuality. Women were speaking but were not being listened to but were being shouted down and insulted instead.

Now we are watching a load of reverse ferreting by people and organisations who did not have the courage these women did, who did not speak up or who bought into the nonsense and who are now trying to tiptoe away from the harm they've helped create. Er.... no.

turbotubbs said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Any reason why the chap alleged to have murdered his wife in Bradford wasn’t called her husband at all during the man hunt? The phrase ‘known to her’ seems odd when it’s your bloody husband! I cannot see a valid reason for not saying the relationship. Anyone?

https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68781650

Only guessing here but possibly because it wasn't relevant to the manhunt?

Once they've got him in custody, then everything that needs saying can be said, but while he's at large presumably only worth saying the critical bits that need to be said. Extraneous information can be a distraction.

Considering the manhunt ended with his successful apprehension, I don't question the tactics used to find and arrest him.

And yet I suspect if he was a white chap who had murdered his wife it would have been front and centre. Maybe I’m wrong?

I don't see any reason for that suspicion.

From what I've observed in the past, when a manhunt is on, then typically the individuals specifics are given and not much else.

Only post-arrest does more come out. This seems standard practice to me, its not like its being covered up, as its openly said now he's safely in custody. 🤷‍♂️

I’m sorry, but I just think it’s weird.

It really isn't. It's standard practice, in a manhunt, to be really limited - this is the man we are hunting, and this is what you do if you see him. Further details are revealed when you have him in custody or, sometimes, to keep the matter in the news if you don't.

So suppose they'd not got him this week. The story next week is "Prime suspect is victim's hubby, cops reveal". It's sad, but that's news whereas "Victim's husband still at large" isn't.

What purpose is served by saying ‘believed to be known to the victim’ rather than ‘is her husband’?

Indeed because people that knew them as a couple would recognise him as her husband, saying known to the victim wouldn't immediately think I just saw the husband maybe I should ring the police

Leon said:

Clutch_Brompton said:

On topic - it is startling quite how much Khan is underperforming the Lab party in R&W London polling. Changes since September.

Lab 51 (+4), Con 23 (-4), LD 13 (-4), G 7 (+3), Ref 5 (+1)
Khan 43 (+10), Hall 30 (-2), G 10 (+1), LD 8 (-8), Ref 7 (+3)

To me this suggests that this is is not an outlier poll. If these polls are as awry as last time then as TSE says there is much value in Hall. One caveat. The previous R&W poll had Khan only 1% ahead. So a 13% lead is not necessarily as skinny as it might appear. It really does raise the issue of candidate quality. Hall's choice may well cost the Cons a real chance at winning in London. I'm not sure what No 10 should fear most. Hall costing them a close election or Hall actually winning and feeling emboldened to speak 'her mind' in the run-up to the GE. That has chances to go all sorts of disastrous really quickly!

It's not startling if you live in London. Khan is a truly drreadful mayor. I don't know anyone that admires him (I am sure they exist but not in my circle, which is often quite bohemian and leftwing)

He's a vacuity. A nothing. He wins by default because the Tories are so utterly useless at picking contenders

I reckon a charismatic independent would have a chance; I am surprised no one has given it a go

I admire him. The ULEZ is a real achievement, carried through in the teeth of concerted (and dishonest) opposition. He was willing to become unpopular to do the right thing. And he faces more threats to his life and his family than any other politician, but hadn't let these thugs drive him from public life.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Whilst I agree with the crux of what Rowling says, I do think the way she goes about it utterly shoots herself in the foot.

If she wants to build consensus which I think most do, she goes about it in a really baffling way. She looks to have been proven to be correct - but she's gone about it in such a difficult way that she really hasn't helped herself at all.

The way Sonia Sodha has gone about things is so much better.

What about her approach has been difficult? She seems to me have gone for the 'mildly exasperated' approach - heroic given the vilification she's been subjected to for, AFAICS, saying absolutely nothing that could be considered controversial by 90% of people.

Scott_xP said:

@haynesdeborah

Anyone seeking to join the @RoyalNavy will no longer need to prove they can swim in what a source called a "desperate" relaxing of standards. But a spokesperson said standards aren't dropping because all recruits must still pass a swim test during training

With the state our boats are in that seems.....brave.

Bloody hell, what on earth has happened to Liverpool's defence?

Away from Leon's usual nonsense post about Khan.

The actual view of London is a collective "meh" when it comes to Khan, with a much stronger "Hall and the Tories would be worse".

The people that hate Khan don't live in London. Nobody here actually hates him, he is too ineffective and dull to hate.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

turbotubbs said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Any reason why the chap alleged to have murdered his wife in Bradford wasn’t called her husband at all during the man hunt? The phrase ‘known to her’ seems odd when it’s your bloody husband! I cannot see a valid reason for not saying the relationship. Anyone?

https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68781650

Only guessing here but possibly because it wasn't relevant to the manhunt?

Once they've got him in custody, then everything that needs saying can be said, but while he's at large presumably only worth saying the critical bits that need to be said. Extraneous information can be a distraction.

Considering the manhunt ended with his successful apprehension, I don't question the tactics used to find and arrest him.

And yet I suspect if he was a white chap who had murdered his wife it would have been front and centre. Maybe I’m wrong?

I don't see any reason for that suspicion.

From what I've observed in the past, when a manhunt is on, then typically the individuals specifics are given and not much else.

Only post-arrest does more come out. This seems standard practice to me, its not like its being covered up, as its openly said now he's safely in custody. 🤷‍♂️

I’m sorry, but I just think it’s weird.

It really isn't. It's standard practice, in a manhunt, to be really limited - this is the man we are hunting, and this is what you do if you see him. Further details are revealed when you have him in custody or, sometimes, to keep the matter in the news if you don't.

So suppose they'd not got him this week. The story next week is "Prime suspect is victim's hubby, cops reveal". It's sad, but that's news whereas "Victim's husband still at large" isn't.

What purpose is served by saying ‘believed to be known to the victim’ rather than ‘is her husband’?

I've literally just explained that if you'd read the post.

Police drip feed information to ensure it remains news and the picture of the suspect remains in the paper and on the websites until he is apprehended.

"No update in murder case" doesn't do that. The media report on NEW revelations so you don't give it all out on day one of the inquiry. It's basic.

I did read your post, but you are more explicitly saying it’s about keeping the story current than anything else? I am not convinced. We have seen the authorities tiptoe around race so many times (Rotherham etc) that I suspect, and happy to be wrong, that this was a factor here.

isam said:

Unreal from OJ Simpson here

Ruby Wax conducted several mind-blowing interviews over the years, and this one is among the most shocking and revealing 😱 Ruby Wax meets… OJ SIMPSON 🥴 This clip is from Ruby’s brilliant 2023 BBC special exploring her most memorable interviews.

https://x.com/dog_head/status/1778497630168813676?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

https://x.com/thexreportcard/status/1778450837788062134

A black juror from OJ’s trial saying she knew OJ was guilty of MURDER but still let him off

turbotubbs said:

DavidL said:

Bloody hell, what on earth has happened to Liverpool's defence?

Setting up an epic second leg?

I think they need to find their second leg

DavidL said:

Bloody hell, what on earth has happened to Liverpool's defence?

They're Tories?

Scott_xP said:

@haynesdeborah

Anyone seeking to join the @RoyalNavy will no longer need to prove they can swim in what a source called a "desperate" relaxing of standards. But a spokesperson said standards aren't dropping because all recruits must still pass a swim test during training

State of the Natation?

Final score 0 - 3

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Liverpool 0 Atalanta 3 ( yes 3 )

Imagine if Klopp won nothing in his last season?

May have to become an Atalanta fan.
Meanwhile. More points deductions. 2 for Sheff United 3 for Morecambe today. And an announcement that the system will remain for next year. Despite a unanimous vote to remove rules that aren't working.
They are propping up an oligarchy and stifling new entrants. Newcastle CL and a bucket of money, but have to sell their best players. Everton punished for debt, because we are investing in modern facilities.
Sums up the way the country is run in microcosm tbh.

One good thing this administration has definitely done is to check Woke in this country.

It could have been so much worse.

Staunch Canadian parliamentarians sing God Save The King.

Outstanding. Just rejoice at that news:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/11/canadian-parliament-breaks-into-god-save-the-king/

Casino_Royale said:

Staunch Canadian parliamentarians sing God Save The King.

Outstanding. Just rejoice at that news:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/11/canadian-parliament-breaks-into-god-save-the-king/

Why? To annoy Justin Trudeau, presumably?