Labour are starting to own the economy – politicalbetting.com

ohnotnow said:

Scott_xP said:

@Schneider_CM

New phone, Houthis

Do you ever read back your own posts and think 'wtf does this mean?'.

Scott_xP said:

ohnotnow said:

Scott_xP said:

@Schneider_CM

New phone, Houthis

Do you ever read back your own posts and think 'wtf does this mean?'.

Nope

Perhaps if you are reading a blog named for politics, you might enjoy it more if you actually took an interest in politics, stuff that is happening in the World, right now...

@ Scott_xP

LOLWUT I LUV TRUMP NEW PHONE

Foss said:

Anyway, enough about the dodgyness of some of my schooling. Now that we're finding some of the probable genetic roots of ADHD etc, we're going to have to actually come to a functional position on what we try and fix and what we don't. And how we cope with societies that make different decisions around this.

ohnotnow said:

Scott_xP said:

@Schneider_CM

New phone, Houthis

Do you ever read back your own posts and think 'wtf does this mean?'.

carnforth said:

ohnotnow said:

Scott_xP said:

ohnotnow said:

Scott_xP said:

@Schneider_CM

New phone, Houthis

Do you ever read back your own posts and think 'wtf does this mean?'.

Nope

Perhaps if you are reading a blog named for politics, you might enjoy it more if you actually took an interest in politics, stuff that is happening in the World, right now...

I do - but you post things like 'New phone, Houthis' with an @ that goes nowhere. I mean - LOL and whatnot. But is it a huge amount to at least post a link to the source? Otherwise the massive contribution is somewhat diminished as I can't pass on LOL and whatnot to anyone else, or confirm it, or bookmark it, or.... use it or believe it or deny it on any way.

If I post :

&Scott_xP

LOLWUT I LUV TRUMP NEW PHONE

I personally know that is a massive contribution that I don't need to read back, which would be lapped up by every connoisseur of political debate. But personally, it's not that useful.

Scott done done a pun:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/new-phone-who-dis

Gallowgate said:

@BartholomewRoberts people don’t really want growth. They just want wealth. For themselves, primarily. This is the inherent contradiction in British political culture. They want things to stay exactly the same, but just a little bit better. That’s my experience anyway.

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

WH press secretary Karoline Leavitt:

“President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

‘Course he does; he’s an idiot.

ohnotnow said:

Scott_xP said:

ohnotnow said:

Scott_xP said:

@Schneider_CM

New phone, Houthis

Do you ever read back your own posts and think 'wtf does this mean?'.

Nope

Perhaps if you are reading a blog named for politics, you might enjoy it more if you actually took an interest in politics, stuff that is happening in the World, right now...

I do - but you post things like 'New phone, Houthis' with an @ that goes nowhere. I mean - LOL and whatnot. But is it a huge amount to at least post a link to the source? Otherwise the massive contribution is somewhat diminished as I can't pass on LOL and whatnot to anyone else, or confirm it, or bookmark it, or.... use it or believe it or deny it on any way.

If I post :

@ Scott_xP

LOLWUT I LUV TRUMP NEW PHONE

I personally know that is a massive contribution that I don't need to read back, which would be lapped up by every connoisseur of political debate. But personally, it's not that useful.

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Foss said:

Anyway, enough about the dodgyness of some of my schooling. Now that we're finding some of the probable genetic roots of ADHD etc, we're going to have to actually come to a functional position on what we try and fix and what we don't. And how we cope with societies that make different decisions around this.

Although that study seems to be in zebra fish, so more work needs to be done.

The universal conclusion for all research papers:

...so more work needs to be done.

glw said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

WH press secretary Karoline Leavitt:

“President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

‘Course he does; he’s an idiot.

We already knew that Trump was an idiot, but we now have confirmation that so are almost all of his senior Cabinet officials. There must be a decent chance that at least one of them has a phone that was compromised, they would certainly be targets. If they are dumb enough to be conducting government business on unapproved phones using unapproved apps there is a fair chance that those phones aren't being monitored or sanitised, and are therefore potentially vulnerable.

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1904242852827480216

Trump on his cabinet members using Signal to text war plans to a reporter: "I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To be it's a magazine that's going out of business. But I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?"

This is someone much more demented than Biden ever was.

Scott_xP said:

@KarinaVinnikova

Very serious administration

Daveyboy1961 said:

turbotubbs said:

Stereodog said:

turbotubbs said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

MaxPB said:

Trevor Phillips on form in The Times today - https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/definition-of-disability-is-losing-its-meaning-k9bc89l5m

'But while all that may be true, we still carry the torch for social justice higher than most nations. We just seem to have forgotten that someone, somewhere has to pay for it. As my American siblings soberly remind me: “Never let your mouth write a cheque your ass can’t cover.”

Rachel Reeves, as she contemplates her spring statement, must be wondering why no one foresaw that the huge IOU the last Labour administration wrote to disabled people would one day be called in. The size of the disability benefits bill is running at £39.1 billion; it will rise to at least £58 billion by the end of the parliament — more than we spend on primary schools or the army. And we can’t say we weren’t warned that social justice costs.'

'In 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act marked a transition from what used to be called the “medical” model of disability to the “social” model. In summary, the old idea was that any impairment was regarded as a deficiency in the person to whom it was attached. The new claim was that people come in all shapes and sizes: what we used to called a disability or deformity wasn’t a deficiency, merely another manifestation of human diversity. It was down to employers, architects, retailers, transport providers and the like to adjust to a new normal.'

'More broadly, my guess is that experiences common to the human condition — sadness, lapses in concentration, periods of exhaustion — are now being pathologised to an extent that makes the impairment unremarkable and not in any sense a true disability. In short, if everyone becomes disabled, then no one is disabled. In practice those who most need help are being pushed to the back of the queue by people whose claims are dubious.'

The whole piece is worth reading and one of the reasons I still pay for a subscription to The Times. He's articulating what many of us have said many times on here perfectly. We've medicalised "disability" to such an extend that people are using "mental health" as a catch all for signing up to a £10k pa UBI if you can convince the assessor that you are "deserving". It's time to end the PIP for all mental health claims and shit can UC and move back to JSA and ESA with only in person assessments of disability eligible for enhanced support. Yes it will make a lot of people poorer and yes there will be edge cases that will need resolving, yet if we do nothing the country is heading for the poor house as more and more people decide that they too can sign up for an easy life on PIP.

Either that or we could address the mental health epidemic that is disabling people left right and centre.

One of my team handed in her notice this week. She is quitting her post so she can look after her teenage daughter with ADHD, anxiety, eating disorders and deliberate self harm. I don't blame her at all, and would have done so myself in her circumstances. Hopefully my colleague be back in a few years time.

A mental health epidemic will have causes. Like epidemics of lung cancer they don't happen randomly. In the long run addressing those will both do more good and be better value for money.

But additionally (following on from Trevor Phillips above) it is essential for NHS and education system survival to demedicalise all sorts of conditions like naughty boy syndrome, and for the economy to disbenefit all sorts of bogus conditions.

Currently between 11 and 18% of all pupils (depends what you count exactly) suffers form some sort of special educational need. This is nonsense and untrue. When the figures are at that scale what you are doing is abnormalising normal aspects of the human condition (being dim, being a bit slow, being annoyingly restless, preferring football to learning to read and so on).

But so much better for the parents if dim little Johnny has an actual diagnosis of why he is dim.
I tend to agree with you on this. A bit like EDI the danger is of good things being pushed far too far. Just as you can end up with a man simply asserting he is a woman and others being forced to agree with this so too the range and diversity of intelligence and comprehension can be medicalised to make the parents feel better.

Why not blame the system that only provides the learning support people need if they have a medical diagnosis rather than the parents?

To give some context in why I feel this way - I teach relatively bright (AAB at A level) pharmacy students, an astonishingly high number of which claim extra time in exams and other adaptations. A 10 minute exercise becomes 12 minutes 30 seconds for them.

In almost all cases there is no evidence of why this is needed other than that they are gaming the system.

The real world tends not to tolerate such adaptation, but we cosset at school and Uni like crazy to keep them happy.

I'm not sure how universities do their testing, but as a specialist assessor at school and exams officer before I retired, I know that to get extra time in exams there needs to be psychometric testing done. The candidate needs to demonstrate a standardised score of below 85 in 2 areas, accompanied by normal way of working and a report by the school senco.

Daveyboy1961 said:

turbotubbs said:

Stereodog said:

turbotubbs said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

MaxPB said:

Trevor Phillips on form in The Times today - https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/definition-of-disability-is-losing-its-meaning-k9bc89l5m

'But while all that may be true, we still carry the torch for social justice higher than most nations. We just seem to have forgotten that someone, somewhere has to pay for it. As my American siblings soberly remind me: “Never let your mouth write a cheque your ass can’t cover.”

Rachel Reeves, as she contemplates her spring statement, must be wondering why no one foresaw that the huge IOU the last Labour administration wrote to disabled people would one day be called in. The size of the disability benefits bill is running at £39.1 billion; it will rise to at least £58 billion by the end of the parliament — more than we spend on primary schools or the army. And we can’t say we weren’t warned that social justice costs.'

'In 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act marked a transition from what used to be called the “medical” model of disability to the “social” model. In summary, the old idea was that any impairment was regarded as a deficiency in the person to whom it was attached. The new claim was that people come in all shapes and sizes: what we used to called a disability or deformity wasn’t a deficiency, merely another manifestation of human diversity. It was down to employers, architects, retailers, transport providers and the like to adjust to a new normal.'

'More broadly, my guess is that experiences common to the human condition — sadness, lapses in concentration, periods of exhaustion — are now being pathologised to an extent that makes the impairment unremarkable and not in any sense a true disability. In short, if everyone becomes disabled, then no one is disabled. In practice those who most need help are being pushed to the back of the queue by people whose claims are dubious.'

The whole piece is worth reading and one of the reasons I still pay for a subscription to The Times. He's articulating what many of us have said many times on here perfectly. We've medicalised "disability" to such an extend that people are using "mental health" as a catch all for signing up to a £10k pa UBI if you can convince the assessor that you are "deserving". It's time to end the PIP for all mental health claims and shit can UC and move back to JSA and ESA with only in person assessments of disability eligible for enhanced support. Yes it will make a lot of people poorer and yes there will be edge cases that will need resolving, yet if we do nothing the country is heading for the poor house as more and more people decide that they too can sign up for an easy life on PIP.

Either that or we could address the mental health epidemic that is disabling people left right and centre.

One of my team handed in her notice this week. She is quitting her post so she can look after her teenage daughter with ADHD, anxiety, eating disorders and deliberate self harm. I don't blame her at all, and would have done so myself in her circumstances. Hopefully my colleague be back in a few years time.

A mental health epidemic will have causes. Like epidemics of lung cancer they don't happen randomly. In the long run addressing those will both do more good and be better value for money.

But additionally (following on from Trevor Phillips above) it is essential for NHS and education system survival to demedicalise all sorts of conditions like naughty boy syndrome, and for the economy to disbenefit all sorts of bogus conditions.

Currently between 11 and 18% of all pupils (depends what you count exactly) suffers form some sort of special educational need. This is nonsense and untrue. When the figures are at that scale what you are doing is abnormalising normal aspects of the human condition (being dim, being a bit slow, being annoyingly restless, preferring football to learning to read and so on).

But so much better for the parents if dim little Johnny has an actual diagnosis of why he is dim.
I tend to agree with you on this. A bit like EDI the danger is of good things being pushed far too far. Just as you can end up with a man simply asserting he is a woman and others being forced to agree with this so too the range and diversity of intelligence and comprehension can be medicalised to make the parents feel better.

Why not blame the system that only provides the learning support people need if they have a medical diagnosis rather than the parents?

To give some context in why I feel this way - I teach relatively bright (AAB at A level) pharmacy students, an astonishingly high number of which claim extra time in exams and other adaptations. A 10 minute exercise becomes 12 minutes 30 seconds for them.

In almost all cases there is no evidence of why this is needed other than that they are gaming the system.

The real world tends not to tolerate such adaptation, but we cosset at school and Uni like crazy to keep them happy.

I'm not sure how universities do their testing, but as a specialist assessor at school and exams officer before I retired, I know that to get extra time in exams there needs to be psychometric testing done. The candidate needs to demonstrate a standardised score of below 85 in 2 areas, accompanied by normal way of working and a report by the school senco.

Foxy said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

MaxPB said:

Trevor Phillips on form in The Times today - https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/definition-of-disability-is-losing-its-meaning-k9bc89l5m

'But while all that may be true, we still carry the torch for social justice higher than most nations. We just seem to have forgotten that someone, somewhere has to pay for it. As my American siblings soberly remind me: “Never let your mouth write a cheque your ass can’t cover.”

Rachel Reeves, as she contemplates her spring statement, must be wondering why no one foresaw that the huge IOU the last Labour administration wrote to disabled people would one day be called in. The size of the disability benefits bill is running at £39.1 billion; it will rise to at least £58 billion by the end of the parliament — more than we spend on primary schools or the army. And we can’t say we weren’t warned that social justice costs.'

'In 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act marked a transition from what used to be called the “medical” model of disability to the “social” model. In summary, the old idea was that any impairment was regarded as a deficiency in the person to whom it was attached. The new claim was that people come in all shapes and sizes: what we used to called a disability or deformity wasn’t a deficiency, merely another manifestation of human diversity. It was down to employers, architects, retailers, transport providers and the like to adjust to a new normal.'

'More broadly, my guess is that experiences common to the human condition — sadness, lapses in concentration, periods of exhaustion — are now being pathologised to an extent that makes the impairment unremarkable and not in any sense a true disability. In short, if everyone becomes disabled, then no one is disabled. In practice those who most need help are being pushed to the back of the queue by people whose claims are dubious.'

The whole piece is worth reading and one of the reasons I still pay for a subscription to The Times. He's articulating what many of us have said many times on here perfectly. We've medicalised "disability" to such an extend that people are using "mental health" as a catch all for signing up to a £10k pa UBI if you can convince the assessor that you are "deserving". It's time to end the PIP for all mental health claims and shit can UC and move back to JSA and ESA with only in person assessments of disability eligible for enhanced support. Yes it will make a lot of people poorer and yes there will be edge cases that will need resolving, yet if we do nothing the country is heading for the poor house as more and more people decide that they too can sign up for an easy life on PIP.

Either that or we could address the mental health epidemic that is disabling people left right and centre.

One of my team handed in her notice this week. She is quitting her post so she can look after her teenage daughter with ADHD, anxiety, eating disorders and deliberate self harm. I don't blame her at all, and would have done so myself in her circumstances. Hopefully my colleague be back in a few years time.

A mental health epidemic will have causes. Like epidemics of lung cancer they don't happen randomly. In the long run addressing those will both do more good and be better value for money.

But additionally (following on from Trevor Phillips above) it is essential for NHS and education system survival to demedicalise all sorts of conditions like naughty boy syndrome, and for the economy to disbenefit all sorts of bogus conditions.

Currently between 11 and 18% of all pupils (depends what you count exactly) suffers form some sort of special educational need. This is nonsense and untrue. When the figures are at that scale what you are doing is abnormalising normal aspects of the human condition (being dim, being a bit slow, being annoyingly restless, preferring football to learning to read and so on).

But so much better for the parents if dim little Johnny has an actual diagnosis of why he is dim.
I tend to agree with you on this. A bit like EDI the danger is of good things being pushed far too far. Just as you can end up with a man simply asserting he is a woman and others being forced to agree with this so too the range and diversity of intelligence and comprehension can be medicalised to make the parents feel better.

Yes, I think there are a group of people who disable themselves with a diagnosis, saying " I can't do that because I am dyslexic" rather than "I need to work very hard at that because of my dyslexia".

Over all though recognition of neurodiversity is helpful in self actualization and personal development. So finding learning and studying styles that work well for a particular individual. 15% of our medical students have one or other forms of neurodiversity, and I think the rate is probably significantly higher on PB. Not everyone needs medication, and if matched well to the task then it can be an advantage. ASD people are particularly good at repetitive tasks as they can maintain focus, and spot patterns. Ideal histopathologists perhaps.

As 1 in 5 have suicidal thoughts and 1 in 15 attempt suicide in their lifetime, mental health issues are not rare amongst us. Once again we have had people volunteer similar feelings on PB.

These things are not rare.

Nobody is suggesting that these things are rare, just that they shouldn't be counted for £10k per year PIP and in most cases opting out of work entirely.

They need to be properly assessed, but there certainly are people disabled by psychiatric disease to the point of needing PIP to live independently.

If finance is driving assessment then the cart is before the horse.

turbotubbs said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

turbotubbs said:

Stereodog said:

turbotubbs said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

MaxPB said:

Trevor Phillips on form in The Times today - https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/definition-of-disability-is-losing-its-meaning-k9bc89l5m

'But while all that may be true, we still carry the torch for social justice higher than most nations. We just seem to have forgotten that someone, somewhere has to pay for it. As my American siblings soberly remind me: “Never let your mouth write a cheque your ass can’t cover.”

Rachel Reeves, as she contemplates her spring statement, must be wondering why no one foresaw that the huge IOU the last Labour administration wrote to disabled people would one day be called in. The size of the disability benefits bill is running at £39.1 billion; it will rise to at least £58 billion by the end of the parliament — more than we spend on primary schools or the army. And we can’t say we weren’t warned that social justice costs.'

'In 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act marked a transition from what used to be called the “medical” model of disability to the “social” model. In summary, the old idea was that any impairment was regarded as a deficiency in the person to whom it was attached. The new claim was that people come in all shapes and sizes: what we used to called a disability or deformity wasn’t a deficiency, merely another manifestation of human diversity. It was down to employers, architects, retailers, transport providers and the like to adjust to a new normal.'

'More broadly, my guess is that experiences common to the human condition — sadness, lapses in concentration, periods of exhaustion — are now being pathologised to an extent that makes the impairment unremarkable and not in any sense a true disability. In short, if everyone becomes disabled, then no one is disabled. In practice those who most need help are being pushed to the back of the queue by people whose claims are dubious.'

The whole piece is worth reading and one of the reasons I still pay for a subscription to The Times. He's articulating what many of us have said many times on here perfectly. We've medicalised "disability" to such an extend that people are using "mental health" as a catch all for signing up to a £10k pa UBI if you can convince the assessor that you are "deserving". It's time to end the PIP for all mental health claims and shit can UC and move back to JSA and ESA with only in person assessments of disability eligible for enhanced support. Yes it will make a lot of people poorer and yes there will be edge cases that will need resolving, yet if we do nothing the country is heading for the poor house as more and more people decide that they too can sign up for an easy life on PIP.

Either that or we could address the mental health epidemic that is disabling people left right and centre.

One of my team handed in her notice this week. She is quitting her post so she can look after her teenage daughter with ADHD, anxiety, eating disorders and deliberate self harm. I don't blame her at all, and would have done so myself in her circumstances. Hopefully my colleague be back in a few years time.

A mental health epidemic will have causes. Like epidemics of lung cancer they don't happen randomly. In the long run addressing those will both do more good and be better value for money.

But additionally (following on from Trevor Phillips above) it is essential for NHS and education system survival to demedicalise all sorts of conditions like naughty boy syndrome, and for the economy to disbenefit all sorts of bogus conditions.

Currently between 11 and 18% of all pupils (depends what you count exactly) suffers form some sort of special educational need. This is nonsense and untrue. When the figures are at that scale what you are doing is abnormalising normal aspects of the human condition (being dim, being a bit slow, being annoyingly restless, preferring football to learning to read and so on).

But so much better for the parents if dim little Johnny has an actual diagnosis of why he is dim.
I tend to agree with you on this. A bit like EDI the danger is of good things being pushed far too far. Just as you can end up with a man simply asserting he is a woman and others being forced to agree with this so too the range and diversity of intelligence and comprehension can be medicalised to make the parents feel better.

Why not blame the system that only provides the learning support people need if they have a medical diagnosis rather than the parents?

To give some context in why I feel this way - I teach relatively bright (AAB at A level) pharmacy students, an astonishingly high number of which claim extra time in exams and other adaptations. A 10 minute exercise becomes 12 minutes 30 seconds for them.

In almost all cases there is no evidence of why this is needed other than that they are gaming the system.

The real world tends not to tolerate such adaptation, but we cosset at school and Uni like crazy to keep them happy.

I'm not sure how universities do their testing, but as a specialist assessor at school and exams officer before I retired, I know that to get extra time in exams there needs to be psychometric testing done. The candidate needs to demonstrate a standardised score of below 85 in 2 areas, accompanied by normal way of working and a report by the school senco.

I’m not convinced our systems are that rigorous. And I certainly don’t believe that all the ones claiming it actually need it.

Daveyboy1961 said:

turbotubbs said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

turbotubbs said:

Stereodog said:

turbotubbs said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

MaxPB said:

Trevor Phillips on form in The Times today - https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/definition-of-disability-is-losing-its-meaning-k9bc89l5m

'But while all that may be true, we still carry the torch for social justice higher than most nations. We just seem to have forgotten that someone, somewhere has to pay for it. As my American siblings soberly remind me: “Never let your mouth write a cheque your ass can’t cover.”

Rachel Reeves, as she contemplates her spring statement, must be wondering why no one foresaw that the huge IOU the last Labour administration wrote to disabled people would one day be called in. The size of the disability benefits bill is running at £39.1 billion; it will rise to at least £58 billion by the end of the parliament — more than we spend on primary schools or the army. And we can’t say we weren’t warned that social justice costs.'

'In 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act marked a transition from what used to be called the “medical” model of disability to the “social” model. In summary, the old idea was that any impairment was regarded as a deficiency in the person to whom it was attached. The new claim was that people come in all shapes and sizes: what we used to called a disability or deformity wasn’t a deficiency, merely another manifestation of human diversity. It was down to employers, architects, retailers, transport providers and the like to adjust to a new normal.'

'More broadly, my guess is that experiences common to the human condition — sadness, lapses in concentration, periods of exhaustion — are now being pathologised to an extent that makes the impairment unremarkable and not in any sense a true disability. In short, if everyone becomes disabled, then no one is disabled. In practice those who most need help are being pushed to the back of the queue by people whose claims are dubious.'

The whole piece is worth reading and one of the reasons I still pay for a subscription to The Times. He's articulating what many of us have said many times on here perfectly. We've medicalised "disability" to such an extend that people are using "mental health" as a catch all for signing up to a £10k pa UBI if you can convince the assessor that you are "deserving". It's time to end the PIP for all mental health claims and shit can UC and move back to JSA and ESA with only in person assessments of disability eligible for enhanced support. Yes it will make a lot of people poorer and yes there will be edge cases that will need resolving, yet if we do nothing the country is heading for the poor house as more and more people decide that they too can sign up for an easy life on PIP.

Either that or we could address the mental health epidemic that is disabling people left right and centre.

One of my team handed in her notice this week. She is quitting her post so she can look after her teenage daughter with ADHD, anxiety, eating disorders and deliberate self harm. I don't blame her at all, and would have done so myself in her circumstances. Hopefully my colleague be back in a few years time.

A mental health epidemic will have causes. Like epidemics of lung cancer they don't happen randomly. In the long run addressing those will both do more good and be better value for money.

But additionally (following on from Trevor Phillips above) it is essential for NHS and education system survival to demedicalise all sorts of conditions like naughty boy syndrome, and for the economy to disbenefit all sorts of bogus conditions.

Currently between 11 and 18% of all pupils (depends what you count exactly) suffers form some sort of special educational need. This is nonsense and untrue. When the figures are at that scale what you are doing is abnormalising normal aspects of the human condition (being dim, being a bit slow, being annoyingly restless, preferring football to learning to read and so on).

But so much better for the parents if dim little Johnny has an actual diagnosis of why he is dim.
I tend to agree with you on this. A bit like EDI the danger is of good things being pushed far too far. Just as you can end up with a man simply asserting he is a woman and others being forced to agree with this so too the range and diversity of intelligence and comprehension can be medicalised to make the parents feel better.

Why not blame the system that only provides the learning support people need if they have a medical diagnosis rather than the parents?

To give some context in why I feel this way - I teach relatively bright (AAB at A level) pharmacy students, an astonishingly high number of which claim extra time in exams and other adaptations. A 10 minute exercise becomes 12 minutes 30 seconds for them.

In almost all cases there is no evidence of why this is needed other than that they are gaming the system.

The real world tends not to tolerate such adaptation, but we cosset at school and Uni like crazy to keep them happy.

I'm not sure how universities do their testing, but as a specialist assessor at school and exams officer before I retired, I know that to get extra time in exams there needs to be psychometric testing done. The candidate needs to demonstrate a standardised score of below 85 in 2 areas, accompanied by normal way of working and a report by the school senco.

I’m not convinced our systems are that rigorous. And I certainly don’t believe that all the ones claiming it actually need it.

The areas under test would be reading speed or comprehension speed, writing speed or phonological processing speed. I suspect if there's a lot of reading in the exams that's what they need it for.

Scott_xP said:

glw said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

WH press secretary Karoline Leavitt:

“President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

‘Course he does; he’s an idiot.

We already knew that Trump was an idiot, but we now have confirmation that so are almost all of his senior Cabinet officials. There must be a decent chance that at least one of them has a phone that was compromised, they would certainly be targets. If they are dumb enough to be conducting government business on unapproved phones using unapproved apps there is a fair chance that those phones aren't being monitored or sanitised, and are therefore potentially vulnerable.

How are we feeling about 5 eyes tonight, then...

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Scott_xP said:

@KarinaVinnikova

Very serious administration

I suppose at least they're using Signal. Ours are still using Whatsapp afaik.

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:

glw said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

WH press secretary Karoline Leavitt:

“President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

‘Course he does; he’s an idiot.

We already knew that Trump was an idiot, but we now have confirmation that so are almost all of his senior Cabinet officials. There must be a decent chance that at least one of them has a phone that was compromised, they would certainly be targets. If they are dumb enough to be conducting government business on unapproved phones using unapproved apps there is a fair chance that those phones aren't being monitored or sanitised, and are therefore potentially vulnerable.

How are we feeling about 5 eyes tonight, then...

It's like being in the Eurozone. You can't just leave it if you are integrated to that extent.

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:

glw said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

WH press secretary Karoline Leavitt:

“President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

‘Course he does; he’s an idiot.

We already knew that Trump was an idiot, but we now have confirmation that so are almost all of his senior Cabinet officials. There must be a decent chance that at least one of them has a phone that was compromised, they would certainly be targets. If they are dumb enough to be conducting government business on unapproved phones using unapproved apps there is a fair chance that those phones aren't being monitored or sanitised, and are therefore potentially vulnerable.

How are we feeling about 5 eyes tonight, then...

It's like being in the Eurozone. You can't just leave it if you are integrated to that extent.

That doesn't make sense. The issue is one of the 5 eyes is tipping off the enemy and undermining the remaining four. I suspect if a Eurozone nation destabilised the rest of the Eurozone they would be ejected pronto. No Hotel California for them.

rottenborough said:

Marco Rubio: "No one is the above law."

LOL on stilts.

HYUFD said:

PJH said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The end of the world is nigh, the Telegraph are singing the praises of the ECHR.

Also contains this shocking tautology.

Next week some of the finest lawyers in the land will appear before the High Court in a case which could shake the Government to its core. While the case focuses on whether it is wrong to put VAT on education, much bigger issues are also at stake: the sovereignty of Parliament, the place of education in society and the rights of children.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/24/human-rights-laws-reverse-labour-private-school-vat-raid/

Speaking as somebody who thinks VAT on private school fees is addressing the wrong problem in the wrong way, this case is the stupidest idea in education since Morgan decided to appoint that total loser Spielman as HMCIS.

The ISA would have been much better off negotiating a continuing exemption from OFSTED and the National Curriculum, particularly since one is collapsing in an embarrassing heap and the second on the interim report appears to be a disaster looking for somewhere to happen.

As it is, they've pissed the government off so much they might lose both - and with it, the actual reason for having a private education.

Above average school results and outstanding sport and extra curricular activities will stay regardless

The whole reason anyone can get 'above average results' (insofar as they mean anything due to the quality of our exams) is twofold:

1) Smaller class sizes. They may stay, although cost pressures may play a part here;

2) Not needing to follow the national curriculum so you can build up a much more carefully tailored programme.

As for 'outstanding sport and extracurricular programmes' a great many state schools offer those too. Private schools won't survive just on that.

The intake is even more key

No it isn't. There are plenty of utter thickos who attend private schools and do well there. Mogg, for example, or Johnson, or Cummings.

HYUFD said:

Barely any state schools offer the theatres, concert halls, chapels, cricket and rugby pitches and professional coaches top private schools offer either, hence so many rugby union and cricket professionals were educated privately

Leaving aside the fact I was talking about private schools in general, of which Eton, Harrow and Clifton are an unrepresentative example and not at all germane to my point, plenty of state schools do actually have facilities that can be used for those things. They sometimes don't have the money to use them properly, or advertise them well, but I assure you they are there. I even know of one state school with its own rifle range.

This is a red herring you seem determined to swallow.

If you think Angela Rayner and Prescott and Reeves for instance are brighter and more intellectual than Johnson, Rees Mogg and Cummings that just reflects your inverse snobbery rather than reality.

State schools might have a football pitch or a track and a hall and if a grammar maybe a rugby and cricket pitch too.

They won't have the vast number of pitches, equipment, pavillions, professional coaches, state of the art theatres, vast libraries and chapels and Olympic sized swimming pools the top public schools have, many of which are also shared with the local community

Sigh.

No, I do not *think* many of them do. I *know* many of them do. Not all of them - just as not all private schools have those things. But many.

This is based on 38 years' associate attending, teaching in, inspecting and supporting state schools. And, for the matter of that, private schools.

You, as I understand it, have never actually set foot in one except maybe as a tourist.

I have not referred to Rayner, Prescott or Reeves. They are not relevant. I do not care whether they are stupid or not (and being cleverer than Cummings doesn't make the moss on my garden wall intelligent, by the by). The three I mention are all so dimwitted it's a source of constant amazement to everyone who looks at them that they can actually breathe and walk at the same time. They got where they are through small class sizes and tailored curriculums. Not intellect. They should not be used as an example of 'intake' being important.

You might just allow for the possibility that being rather more knowledgeable and - dare I say it - somewhat more open minded than you, the reason I'm telling you you're wrong is because you are. Maybe just listen, learn and inform yourself?

Except I'm not, Oxbridge entrants, the law, medicine, the Cabinet and Prime Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, CEOs and Chairs if FTSE 100 companies, top actors, Olympic rowers, rugby
union and cricket professionals
are all far more likely to be privately educated than the average person.

If you want to get one of those elite places or jobs a private school education remains the best option with only a handful of state grammars and free schools really in the same league

And that sums up the problem of where we are. We are restricting ourselves by choosing from a very small talent pool. Both the performance of the country, and the England cricket team bear testament to this. How much better would both be if we were truly selecting from the best in the country, because a large number of talented people were not able to shine at an early age, and did something else instead?

We were when we had more grammar schools.

Of course most footballers and entrepreneurs and pop stars and soap and reality stars and influencers are state educated

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Marco Rubio: "No one is the above law."

LOL on stilts.

Fox host Will Cain's take away from The Atlantic scoop is that Americans should be "proud" these are our leaders..
https://x.com/LisPower1/status/1904269804082434110

Good enough for william ?

Scott_xP said:

@justinamash
The level of incompetence here is mind-blowing.

But what shouldn’t be overlooked is the specific substance of the group chat.

There was no emergency.

The executive branch unlawfully sidestepped Congress, taking military action that top officials admit was elective.

The discussion establishes unequivocally that the strikes in Yemen are unconstitutional.

https://x.com/justinamash/status/1904230513478398105

Malmesbury said:

WhatsApp is owned by Farcebook and hence is siphoning your personal data. While selling end to end encryption.

Signal publish their source code - you can even build it yourself and run your own servers.

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

Initial lockdown was more about avoiding the complete collapse of healthcare provision. People dying of other things because the hospitals were full. We have a spectacular ability to use hindsight over the covid period.

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

Initial lockdown was more about avoiding the complete collapse of healthcare provision. People dying of other things because the hospitals were full. We have a spectacular ability to use hindsight over the covid period.

SonofContrarian said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

Initial lockdown was more about avoiding the complete collapse of healthcare provision. People dying of other things because the hospitals were full. We have a spectacular ability to use hindsight over the covid period.

Only foresight not hindsight was needed based on the Diamond Princess data..the hospitals never came close to being full and that data easily explained why that would be the case..🧐

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/modadgeop/status/1904236655789199617

You just have to assume that the Trump admin know how they're perceived by the media. They cannot leak anything directly - the media would not run the story the way they want, and would instead spin it in all sorts of ways. They have to find a way to get the media to publish the stories they want published. So, a Trump incompetence story given to a moron like Goldberg makes sense. The Europeans and Egyptians get to see exactly what the Trump admin wants them to see, and because it's an ORANGE MAN BAD story the message remains undiluted and dominates the news cycle.

4D chess!

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

Initial lockdown was more about avoiding the complete collapse of healthcare provision. People dying of other things because the hospitals were full. We have a spectacular ability to use hindsight over the covid period.

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/modadgeop/status/1904236655789199617

You just have to assume that the Trump admin know how they're perceived by the media. They cannot leak anything directly - the media would not run the story the way they want, and would instead spin it in all sorts of ways. They have to find a way to get the media to publish the stories they want published. So, a Trump incompetence story given to a moron like Goldberg makes sense. The Europeans and Egyptians get to see exactly what the Trump admin wants them to see, and because it's an ORANGE MAN BAD story the message remains undiluted and dominates the news cycle.

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

MaxPB said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

They couldn't even be bothered to tell the fat slobs to do some exercise.

But we allow obese people to claim PIP for the obesity instead of telling to get on the bike and start exercising. As I said, the government (Tory and Labour) are content with giving addicts heroin for the votes.

Stereodog said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

Initial lockdown was more about avoiding the complete collapse of healthcare provision. People dying of other things because the hospitals were full. We have a spectacular ability to use hindsight over the covid period.

As I've said, COVID should have been treated in the home, no hospital visits, anyone testing positive sent home until they were clear of it. I'm under no illusions that this would have led to more deaths up front until there was a viable vaccine to reduce the severity. I would also have not had any furlough scheme and minimal business support and for big businesses cash injections in return for equity. Again, I'm aware this would have led to more unemployment but we wouldn't have any of the current issues where people are finding methods of sitting at home and getting free money from the government by gaming the system.

Lockdown and all of the measures we took will one day be seen as a disaster, we gave people unlimited kindness and in return we've turned into a nation that doesn't want to work and a population that feels entitled to a high standard of living for zero effort.

As to your other point, yes I agree it would have been worse under Labour, yet they weren't in charge. Boris and Rishi could have set the tone a lot better. Giving people up to £2.5k per month to sit at home was and remains a terrible policy, especially for as long as the government kept it.

You are condemning a lot of people based on the spurious idea that we're "a nation that doesn't want to work and a population that feels entitled to a high standard of living for zero effort." Unemployment is low and the vast majority of people work hard and claim no benefits.

Stereodog said:

Foxy said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

They couldn't even be bothered to tell the fat slobs to do some exercise.

It wasn't just "fat slobs" that died. Young people with heart conditions too.

And even "fat slobs" deserve to live.

It seems to be 'pick on anyone not in perfect mental and physical health' night on PB

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Roger said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

pm215 said:

Leon said:

MattW said:

glw said:

Nigelb said:

Whiskey Pete is a national security risk.

The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans
U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. I didn’t think it could be real. Then the bombs started falling.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/

That story is completely nuts. In a normal country mulitple heads would roll as a result.

Astonishing. It lays bare the transactional nature of this group.

A few minutes later, the “Michael Waltz” account posted a lengthy note about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies. “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”

The account identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” (The administration has argued that America’s European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes.)

The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”

At this point, the previously silent “S M” joined the conversation. “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

Trouble is, they are right in the strict terms of American cost/benefit

Why should American taxpayers fork out for defence that benefits, say, Ireland, which is now a really rich country which refuses to spend more than three euro on a navy coz it is “neutral”

In this case America *does* benefit from clear shipping lanes, though (like practically everybody else on the planet). They're also correct that nobody else is close to being able to do the job. Given that, it seems a bit optimistic to expect Europe to pony up for the whole cost, especially if you haven't agreed it in advance and don't have any idea how you'd enforce payment...

You do what they’re doing, tell Europe to go fuck itself unless it coughs up, like Poland

The problem with this strategy is that once Europe has paid up for its own planes and ships it may not want to dance to America's tune any longer. MAGA is hugely underestimating the value America gets out of being the default Western leading nation. By pushing Europe into rearmament they are creating competitors where previously there was nothing.

It is American military leadership that forced Taiwan into investing in the US for advanced semiconductors but the company that makes the machines to make the chips is European. What if in the future an armed to the teeth Europe says "actually fuck that noise, we're going to sell our wares to whoever wants them" and ignores US sanctions on China and other hostile states? The only reason we give any fucks about what the US wants us to do is because we're so hugely dependent on their military so their foreign policy objectives become our foreign policy objectives, sometimes to the detriment of our domestic economy.

I see that logic; indeed. I kind of agree

But confronted by China and China’s incredible surge to near tech-supremacy, i don’t think America gives a fuck any more. The superpower of the future will be the nation that masters robotics, ML, all of it, and for that you need total focus on the job and defending Europe’s eastern border or “being global policeman” or whatever are utterly second or third tier issues

Also, the Yanks rightly reckon that in the end Europe will side with America, whatever

I don't think Europe will, in the end. The EU is a technocratic empire, I think it probably feels pretty comfortable with China as it is and will quite happily sing to China's tune if it suits them, especially in the face of the US which is no longer committed to freedom and security for Europe.

As I said, they're trading in reliable global allies for unreliable global competitors, Europe that spends €500bn on defence isn't going to be happy being supplicant to US interests.

I now know three people from completely different backgrounds who have moved to China and each of them love it and have no intention of coming back. New Zealand used to be a place where people visited and then decided to stay. Now it seems to be China. I should say that all three were successful here (two from England one from France) But China now seems to be the place to live

The Chinese equivalent of PoliticalBetting.com must be completely and utterly BORING!

"In this week's opinion poll, the Chinese Communist Party achieved 99.9% approval, unchanged from last week!"

Malmesbury said:

On the Signal farce in the US. It's worth considering what the UK Government should do, given similar comedies.

Running a UK hosted server and apps is actually fairly simple. If you wanted from scratch, you'd be looking at the equivalent of a small startup.

The system, could then include stuff like security clearance levels to control being invited into rooms, automate recording of what is said and done etc etc...

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

Malmesbury said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

Initial lockdown was more about avoiding the complete collapse of healthcare provision. People dying of other things because the hospitals were full. We have a spectacular ability to use hindsight over the covid period.

IIRC we got to the point that a few patients were moved into a couple of the Nightingale "hospitals"

Happily we live in a more caring society than @MaxPB imagines, which comes across as a 21st version of putting a black cross on front doors and locking people in to die.
We never tried the experiment of just letting it burn through.

I really don’t get the levels of revisionism that some on here are indulging in.

Yes and look at what unlimited kindness has done for us. £38bn per year for "disability" benefits, 9m people inactive, 1 in 5 people employed by the state, a 6.7m NHS waiting list, lowest ever ranking on the global happiness index.

The country needed and still needs tough love. The government is like a doctor giving out heroin to addicts because they think it's better than the pain of withdrawal.

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

SonofContrarian said:

BBC's "The Pandemic 5 years on" documentary seems determined to cement that "lockdown was a necessary evil" narrative by focussing on a few sad stories..🧐

Scientific consensus is that the first lockdown WAS a necessary evil. Probably the later ones too, before the pandemic rollout to the most vulnerable.

I know it’s become fashionable to claim the opposite now, and one shouldn’t ignore the downsides of lockdown, it was a crisis with very few levers to be pulled.

More and more I've come to realise that people die from diseases, fat and old ones even more than usual. The degree to which we sacrificed as a nation to add a few months of life expectancy to the old and the obese was way too high.

The Boris Johnson government will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst in the post war era.

They couldn't even be bothered to tell the fat slobs to do some exercise.

Shutting down the gyms and eat out to help out was a killer combo.