Quite a few previously reliable Tories have been positive about Kemi being so decisive and getting rid of Jenrick.
I think she will survive May now whatever the result. There's also a good chance that the Tories will outperform expectations quite handily.
I stick by my prediction that the Tories are heading for ~28% at the next GE and will be the single largest party ahead of Reform and Labour. The recovery is coming, I can feel it. There's something in the air.
I'm utterly bewildered by those longing for a return to Cameron conservatism. An empty, vacuous PR man who did little for the economy, talked of a golden age in British Sino relations, held a referendum and immediately sauntered off after losing it.
As for culture war it's basically unavoidable because the left insists on fighting one. Ignoring it means that people like Craig Guildford behave in ways entirely typical of senior police officers. If you can't be bothered to stand up to pro FGM/segregation/speech policing authoritarians that's your choice.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
I have voted Conservative in the past (2010), but to me it is not about the individual in charge but about the policy platform. I would vote for a Cameron style party liberal on social matters, dry on finances and pro co-operation with Europe.
But the Rwanda nonsense, the ridiculous obsession with removing EU laws without even thinking what was going to replace them, the obsession with ECHR and culture wars all tried my patience to its very limit.
Quite a few previously reliable Tories have been positive about Kemi being so decisive and getting rid of Jenrick.
I think she will survive May now whatever the result. There's also a good chance that the Tories will outperform expectations quite handily.
I stick by my prediction that the Tories are heading for ~28% at the next GE and will be the single largest party ahead of Reform and Labour. The recovery is coming, I can feel it. There's something in the air.
They like it because it tweaks their Centrist Dad nipples. That's it.
Jenrick was putting his finger on some core issues, and rather effectively.
The trouble is that he's a disloyal and nasty arsehole. That's why he's gone. Not because he was fundamentally wrong.
Quite a few previously reliable Tories have been positive about Kemi being so decisive and getting rid of Jenrick.
I think she will survive May now whatever the result. There's also a good chance that the Tories will outperform expectations quite handily.
I stick by my prediction that the Tories are heading for ~28% at the next GE and will be the single largest party ahead of Reform and Labour. The recovery is coming, I can feel it. There's something in the air.
They like it because it tweaks their Centrist Dad nipples. That's it.
Jenrick was putting his finger on some core issues, and rather effectively.
The trouble is that he's a disloyal and nasty arsehole. That's why he's gone. Not because he was fundamentally wrong.
Hey, Casino, don't worry. Me and my squad of Ultimate Centrists will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a Parliamentary constituency this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, leaflets with dodgy bar charts...
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
Streeting is openly ambitious but I'm not sure he has done anything that smacks of disloyalty. He has not attacked government policy or been openly critical of colleagues. He wants Starmer's job but has stayed within the bounds of Cabinet collective responsibility.
That’s missing the story in that article.
It isn’t that Streeting is absurdly ambitious; we all know that.
Neither is it that Streeting may or may not have done this or that. Or anything to do with the relationship between Starmer and Streeting,
The story there is that Streeting is seriously pissing off the rest of his cabinet colleagues. Who, barring a brutal clear out, are mostly the same people Streeting would be looking to for loyalty and support if he ever did get the top job.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
I have voted Conservative in the past (2010), but to me it is not about the individual in charge but about the policy platform. I would vote for a Cameron style party liberal on social matters, dry on finances and pro co-operation with Europe.
But the Rwanda nonsense, the ridiculous obsession with removing EU laws without even thinking what was going to replace them, the obsession with ECHR and culture wars all tried my patience to its very limit.
I had no trouble with any of that.
In fact, I though much of it necessary.
Indeed. If you look at the terrible decisions from the previous Tory government it came from simply accepting the liberal consensus. Look at giving citizenship to the Egyptian terrorist supporter - a proper Tory home secretary would never have granted it, but the Tories were too happy just going along with the liberal consensus rather than rock the boat and tell them to get fucked.
People talk about the "culture war" and being fed up but again that to me is just liberals telling right wingers to give up and knuckle under the woke nonsense like men in dresses being able to enter women's single sex spaces. I'd like to remind @DavidL that until a couple of years ago those of us who spoke out against the transgender nonsense were being called culture warriors on the wrong side of history and that we should stop moaning. So being told that the culture wars tried his patience really just shows how shallow his own read of the situation is.
The same goes for the ECHR argument, it may seem incessant, yet it is fundamental to our being able to control the border, deport illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and fake asylum seekers. If we don't reform or leave the ECHR the national border may as well not exist. So yes the argument may go against the liberal consensus but without making the change the UK will continue to have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and fake asylum seekers arrive every year without being able to deport them.
On all of those points the Tories need to have hard thinking, come up with realistic plans and show that they understand that the nation is fed up of the liberal consensus that has led to a record fall in living standards for the past two decades and show a lot of contrition for taking part in it for the past 14 years.
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
Quite a few previously reliable Tories have been positive about Kemi being so decisive and getting rid of Jenrick.
I think she will survive May now whatever the result. There's also a good chance that the Tories will outperform expectations quite handily.
I stick by my prediction that the Tories are heading for ~28% at the next GE and will be the single largest party ahead of Reform and Labour. The recovery is coming, I can feel it. There's something in the air.
They like it because it tweaks their Centrist Dad nipples. That's it.
Jenrick was putting his finger on some core issues, and rather effectively.
The trouble is that he's a disloyal and nasty arsehole. That's why he's gone. Not because he was fundamentally wrong.
Yes and no, I agree that he had a way of getting some of the core issues in the media but a big part of the problem is that he was part of the government that oversaw the those problems. It always felt like hypocrisy and generally just fake opportunism coming from him in a way that really seems to rub people the wrong way.
So yes he can see the issues but I don't think he was ever the right guy to deal with them and could never be leader.
Quite a few previously reliable Tories have been positive about Kemi being so decisive and getting rid of Jenrick.
I think she will survive May now whatever the result. There's also a good chance that the Tories will outperform expectations quite handily.
I stick by my prediction that the Tories are heading for ~28% at the next GE and will be the single largest party ahead of Reform and Labour. The recovery is coming, I can feel it. There's something in the air.
They like it because it tweaks their Centrist Dad nipples. That's it.
Jenrick was putting his finger on some core issues, and rather effectively.
The trouble is that he's a disloyal and nasty arsehole. That's why he's gone. Not because he was fundamentally wrong.
Is there a reason why 4/1 Jenrick to be next Reform leader is not a cracking bet? I thought he’d be more like 6/4
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
This discussion seems to ignore that a new trans person is more likely to be a transman than a transwoman.
Is that true? Most men are a lot less worried about changing rooms, tbh.
That's rather contradicted by the trans women who are afraid to use men's facilities, is it not?
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
Miller, Vance etc. like to think of themselves as the New Rome, whilst ignoring that Rome took the interests of its socii very seriously.
Rome sometimes took thousands of casualties, defending its allies from attacks by third parties. Why? Because it understood that its own credibility was on the line, should it fail to do so.
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
This discussion seems to ignore that a new trans person is more likely to be a transman than a transwoman.
Is that true? Most men are a lot less worried about changing rooms, tbh.
That's rather contradicted by the trans women who are afraid to use men's facilities, is it not?
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
This discussion seems to ignore that a new trans person is more likely to be a transman than a transwoman.
Is that true? Most men are a lot less worried about changing rooms, tbh.
That's rather contradicted by the trans women who are afraid to use men's facilities, is it not?
Are they afraid, or just don’t want to?
The crazy part is that in most cases where there has been effort made almost all real women won't notice. It's the men in dresses that are the problem.
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
Miller, Vance etc. like to think of themselves as the New Rome, whilst ignoring that Rome took the interests of its socii very seriously.
Rome sometimes took thousands of casualties, defending its allies from attacks by third parties. Why? Because it understood that its own credibility was on the line, should it fail to do so.
Surely for them the real enemy is western liberalism? They near enough admit this don't they? China might be a rival but not really an adversary.
I've come to think that the American fixation with guns is in many ways a form of rebellion against Nietzsche's last man; the sort of passive, comfortable herbivore man of modern Europe.
How? Reform won't stop cannibalising the Tories as much as they can as it increases their power, so the only option would either be for the Tories to capitulate and become the junior partners despite having 10x the MPs, or for the Tories to rise above Reform in the polls somehow and hope that Farage will agree to be the junior - but he might just decide not to and so undercut them anyway.
Yes, at the moment it is a race to the death, whichever of Reform or the Tories wins most seats at the next general election will likely end up reuniting them and the right eventually (with a few discontents in Reform going off to Advance or in the Tories to the LDs).
Unless we get PR of course in which case they could both remain separate forever and both still win over 100 to 200 seats and then come together post election to form governments if they wish
I am sitting back at present quietly very pleased with Kemi and her decisive action
There may be others who go, but for me that is fine because it means Kemi can design a new conservative offer without the deadwood of failed conservatives, largely Boris supporters, who ironically may well drag down Farage
It will be interesting to see how the polls evolve going forward and to the May elections, but Kemi is in a much safer position today then she was yesterday and Starmer is likely to be the one in the spotlight
Well, that's a typically positive viewpoint.
As a non-Conservative, I'm much less convinced. Her actions were overly theatrical and a sense of watching Jenrick leave in sorrow rather than anger might have isolated him further. Let's not forget he got a substantial vote among the Conservative membership in 2024 and there's a hint from early polling some Conservative voters are less than happy.
The newspaper front pages were full of Jenrick claiming the Conservatives had "failed" and there remains a strong sense BOTH Labour and Conservative represent the failed policies of the past.
I will be interested in what you describe as a "new conservative offer" but the times have changed and what might have worked in the mid-1970s may not play so well in the mid-2020s. There will need to be some serious detail on prospective welfare cuts and tax cuts and it will need to make sense fiscally.
What I think might happen to the Conservatives is what happened to the SDP post the merger in 1989 -the party itself failed but the ideas didn't and they ultimately infiltrated and took over BOTH Labour and the Conservatives.
I know we differ in our politics but I always read your comments with interest and respect
I don't think any of us know how all this plays out but Jenrick was toxic and Kemi proactively sacking him has given me hope that a more centralist conservative party will evolve especially around the economy, and certainly it ends any prospect of a Jenrick led conservative party
While a Conservative Party without Jenrick is better than one with him there is a long way to go.
My constituency is likely to be a Ref/Con marginal, but Badenoch is going to have to roll back the vile culture war stuff if she wants my tactical vote. Currently I am not willing.
Would you tactically vote for a Cleverly led Tories though to beat Reform in your seat?
I have voted Conservative in the past (2010), but to me it is not about the individual in charge but about the policy platform. I would vote for a Cameron style party liberal on social matters, dry on finances and pro co-operation with Europe.
But the Rwanda nonsense, the ridiculous obsession with removing EU laws without even thinking what was going to replace them, the obsession with ECHR and culture wars all tried my patience to its very limit.
I had no trouble with any of that.
In fact, I though much of it necessary.
Indeed. If you look at the terrible decisions from the previous Tory government it came from simply accepting the liberal consensus. Look at giving citizenship to the Egyptian terrorist supporter - a proper Tory home secretary would never have granted it, but the Tories were too happy just going along with the liberal consensus rather than rock the boat and tell them to get fucked.
People talk about the "culture war" and being fed up but again that to me is just liberals telling right wingers to give up and knuckle under the woke nonsense like men in dresses being able to enter women's single sex spaces. I'd like to remind @DavidL that until a couple of years ago those of us who spoke out against the transgender nonsense were being called culture warriors on the wrong side of history and that we should stop moaning. So being told that the culture wars tried his patience really just shows how shallow his own read of the situation is.
The same goes for the ECHR argument, it may seem incessant, yet it is fundamental to our being able to control the border, deport illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and fake asylum seekers. If we don't reform or leave the ECHR the national border may as well not exist. So yes the argument may go against the liberal consensus but without making the change the UK will continue to have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and fake asylum seekers arrive every year without being able to deport them.
On all of those points the Tories need to have hard thinking, come up with realistic plans and show that they understand that the nation is fed up of the liberal consensus that has led to a record fall in living standards for the past two decades and show a lot of contrition for taking part in it for the past 14 years.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
In Crown Office we now have toilets which are marked specifically as gender neutral toilets, expressly for the use of everyone (these were previously for disabled people which is another story). I don't see any problem or embarrassment for any trans people using them. I appreciate that these options may not be available everywhere but hospitals strike me as an unlikely place to have a problem.
I think the problem is that in some environments the mere act of forcing trans women who fully present as and pass as female into third spaces outs them as trans - which could potentially lead to discrimination, harassment, even sexual violence etc.
I do partially agree with you, in the sense that I think people obviously transitioning should be using third spaces and pre op trans people shouldn't be using shared dressing rooms - locked individual cubicles (for changing or using the loo) are a different matter.
I'm also of the "Widdecombe" view that once a person has fully undergone genital reassignment they should be treated for all intents and purposes as their adopted gender. The arguments for excluding them from women's spaces become much, much weaker post-op, which is, IMHO, the most alarming part of the judgement. Much of the rest of it I actually agree with.
I'm interested in what implementing the SC/FWS judgment in full is supposed to lead to in practice. Eg is it the objective of campaigners on the GC side of things that pretty much all signage for male and female spaces has the added words "Biological Only - No Trans"?
Essentially, yes. That is the gender critical view of what should happen, and how the SC judgement should be interpreted. Namely that so-called biological sex is immutable and therefore a trans woman irrespective of what stage of transition she is in remains, and will always be, a man, for the purposes of the equalities act. Gender criticals argue it mandates trans women to be excluded from any space thus designated as single sex female - irrespective of whether you've had genital reassignment surgery, irrespective of the Gender Recognition Act or Goodwin v UK etc. This places the Uk out of step with pretty much the entire western world, with the exception of Trumpistan.
The gender critical view is that there is no objective standard or threshold you can cross that will allow a trans woman to be treated as 'female' in terms of being able to use the loo, attend a women's only dance class, etc.
I think most people would argue this isn't the case and there is a threshold somewhere, it's just rdebated where that is (some would say it's based on whether you 'pass' as female, others would say it's after genital surgery - I would argue for example that the trans person in today's judgement did not cross the threshold for being allowed in female spaces as they were not medically transitioning or on hormones at the time). But the gender critical position is one of total exclusion of trans women and their relegation to third spaces (neatly ignoring both the legal precedents in Goodwin v UK and the 2004 GRA) irrespective of appearance, hormones, or genital surgery. A complete, full, blanket ban. No exceptions.
I think it’s a reasonable position to believe that men cannot become women no matter how many hormones or hormone blockers they have, nor how much plastic surgery has been done.
I also think toilets is a distraction. The real flash points are changing rooms and sports. And realistically the debate has been poisoned by some very bad actors (rapists suddenly becoming trans for example) that has not helped. We should strive for compassion but sadly by asserting their rights, men who claim to be women but have their male genitalia really shouldn’t be in women’s changing rooms.
This discussion seems to ignore that a new trans person is more likely to be a transman than a transwoman.
Is that true? Most men are a lot less worried about changing rooms, tbh.
Well, accurate numbers can be difficult to come by, but Leinung & Joseph (2020) report, "we have seen a steady increase in the number of FTM such that the incidence now equals that of MTF", while this 2016 BBC News article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36010664 reports, "nearly twice as many biological girls than boys were referred to London's Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust last year."
A possible problem is that transmen, individuals on testosterone who look masculine and who may have had a phalloplasty or metoidioplasty, are now expected to use women's changing rooms.
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
Miller, Vance etc. like to think of themselves as the New Rome, whilst ignoring that Rome took the interests of its socii very seriously.
Rome sometimes took thousands of casualties, defending its allies from attacks by third parties. Why? Because it understood that its own credibility was on the line, should it fail to do so.
Surely for them the real enemy is western liberalism? They near enough admit this don't they? China might be a rival but not really an adversary.
I've come to think that the American fixation with guns is in many ways a form of rebellion against Nietzsche's last man; the sort of passive, comfortable herbivore man of modern Europe.
American social media is doing the remarkable job of convincing not just its own people, but rather too many online Europeans too, that Europe - one of if not the most socially and politically diverse regions on the planet (not to mention geographically, climatically, linguistically, ecologically), that it’s one monolithic walking talking stereotype.
Europe has some of the most and least religious cultures, the most right wing and left wing polities, liberal and authoritarian, some of the lowest taxes and the highest, some of the highest and lowest rates of obesity, highest and lowest levels of gun ownership in the world. Yes there are some more standardised things, largely thanks to the single market: tough consumer regulation, relatively low levels of air and water pollution, slick cross border financial services and telecoms. But beyond that it’s a cornucopia of diversity.
I'm utterly bewildered by those longing for a return to Cameron conservatism. An empty, vacuous PR man who did little for the economy, talked of a golden age in British Sino relations, held a referendum and immediately sauntered off after losing it.
Yet Cameron has a better electoral and polling record, so far, than Badenoch or Farage.
The Ukrainians are claiming a 27:1 kill ratio in their recent successful battle to retake Kupiansk, which would be astonishing if anywhere close to accurate, particularly as it was an operation where they were on the offensive, and typically the attacker will suffer heavier casualties.
One of the big problems Ukraine has had is an inability to spread good practice from the most effective brigades to the rest of the army. Jack Watling from RUSI has said that the manpower shortage has meant they can't build the sort of training programme that would enable that to happen.
This is something the new defence minister will be able to address. He had a good track record in his previous post as minister for digital transformation.
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
Russia is invading Ukraine, Iran is in turmoil, China is threatening Taiwan, civil wars rage in Sudan and Yemen, and Bosnia isn't looking that stable, but we're having to deploy to f***ing Greenland. Not because Greenland is under threat from Russia, China or even Iran, but because it is under threat from the United States of America. How did we get here?
(And a few people here still even think Trump was the right choice in 2024!)
This non sequitur needs to be challenged more: “the liberal consensus that has led to a record fall in living standards for the past two decades”
Because it’s all over social media and it’s based on nothing.
The second part of the sentence is partly correct. There has been a fall (not a record one), for most in the developed world. Except the super rich of course. But all the evidence shows it’s down to repeated crises since 2008 (the financial crisis and its fallout, commodity price hikes, Covid, Ukraine etc), global economic competition, and most of all ageing demographics.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
No, Following floor directions round a supermarket..or taking a mask on and off while in a pub/restaurant is totally idiotic..but if it ensured compliance that's the main objective..🧐
This non sequitur needs to be challenged more: “the liberal consensus that has led to a record fall in living standards for the past two decades”
Because it’s all over social media and it’s based on nothing.
The second part of the sentence is correct. There has been, for most in the developed world. Except the super rich of course. But all the evidence says it’s down to repeated crises since 2008 (the financial crisis and its fallout, commodity price hikes, Covid, Ukraine etc), global economic competition, and most of all ageing demographics.
Austerity was a right-wing response to the Financial Crash, if it failed it was a failure of the right-wing.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
No, Following floor directions round a supermarket..or taking a mask on and off while in a pub/restaurant is totally idiotic..but if it ensured compliance that's the main objective..🧐
It's Friday night and we're being swamped with alt right conspiracy theories.
Which is the sort of nonsense that has led us to having to send troops to Greenland!
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
Russia is invading Ukraine, Iran is in turmoil, China is threatening Taiwan, civil wars rage in Sudan and Yemen, and Bosnia isn't looking that stable, but we're having to deploy to f***ing Greenland. Not because Greenland is under threat from Russia, China or even Iran, but because it is under threat from the United States of America. How did we get here?
(And a few people here still even think Trump was the right choice in 2024!)
I certainly didn't have 'World War III is Europe vs USA' on my bingo card.
The Ukrainians are claiming a 27:1 kill ratio in their recent successful battle to retake Kupiansk, which would be astonishing if anywhere close to accurate, particularly as it was an operation where they were on the offensive, and typically the attacker will suffer heavier casualties.
One of the big problems Ukraine has had is an inability to spread good practice from the most effective brigades to the rest of the army. Jack Watling from RUSI has said that the manpower shortage has meant they can't build the sort of training programme that would enable that to happen.
This is something the new defence minister will be able to address. He had a good track record in his previous post as minister for digital transformation.
27:1?
Surprised it is that low given that Putin's Russian military command just throws raw, virtually unarmed recruits, many of them drunk out of their box, in to the meat grinder.
This non sequitur needs to be challenged more: “the liberal consensus that has led to a record fall in living standards for the past two decades”
Because it’s all over social media and it’s based on nothing.
The second part of the sentence is partly correct. There has been a fall (not a record one), for most in the developed world. Except the super rich of course. But all the evidence shows it’s down to repeated crises since 2008 (the financial crisis and its fallout, commodity price hikes, Covid, Ukraine etc), global economic competition, and most of all ageing demographics.
What's the alternative to the liberal consensus that these people want? Trump's America, where ICE agents pull you off the street if you're brown, and shoot you in the face if you have the temerity to be in a car?
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
Miller, Vance etc. like to think of themselves as the New Rome, whilst ignoring that Rome took the interests of its socii very seriously.
Rome sometimes took thousands of casualties, defending its allies from attacks by third parties. Why? Because it understood that its own credibility was on the line, should it fail to do so.
Surely for them the real enemy is western liberalism? They near enough admit this don't they? China might be a rival but not really an adversary.
I've come to think that the American fixation with guns is in many ways a form of rebellion against Nietzsche's last man; the sort of passive, comfortable herbivore man of modern Europe.
I think we are seeing the total bollocks of the Second Ammendment exposed. It is supposed to be the lbest protection against a government tyranny, but it is completely useless in Minneapolis. Nothing is standing in the way of the masked* ICE thugs.
*one irony of the insistence of ICE Sturmabteilung men always wearing masks is that they are the same people that refused to wear masks in covid, and also object to Islamic Niqab.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Masks have been a staple part of infection control for a very long time. I don't like them, and I don't agree with mandating their use by law, but they are beneficial in some circumstances to control the spread of some infections.
Similarly, it makes sense to reduce the spread of a deadly infection by keeping a physical distance from people in other households. Again, I don't agree with a government mandating by law who is allowed to visit private houses, but it makes sense for people to be encouraged to do this as part of a public health response to a pandemic.
What really disturbs me about the dominant reaction against masks/isolation is that instead of focusing on objections around the legal overreach, the baby is thrown out with the bathwater and opponents seem to fall into a conspiratorial rabbit hole of denying that there should be any public health response at all.
This non sequitur needs to be challenged more: “the liberal consensus that has led to a record fall in living standards for the past two decades”
Because it’s all over social media and it’s based on nothing.
The second part of the sentence is partly correct. There has been a fall (not a record one), for most in the developed world. Except the super rich of course. But all the evidence shows it’s down to repeated crises since 2008 (the financial crisis and its fallout, commodity price hikes, Covid, Ukraine etc), global economic competition, and most of all ageing demographics.
What's the alternative to the liberal consensus that these people want? Trump's America, where ICE agents pull you off the street if you're brown, and shoot you in the face if you have the temerity to be in a car?
The main point is it’s a non sequitur.
There’s social policy, then there’s economic policy. The two have very little to do with each other. There are economically successful and unsuccessful socially liberal countries, and successful and unsuccessful conservative ones.
The only reason they get conflated is the totalising nature of the culture war that the internet age has fostered and the USA has exported.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Masks have been a staple part of infection control for a very long time. I don't like them, and I don't agree with mandating their use by law, but they are beneficial in some circumstances to control the spread of some infections.
Similarly, it makes sense to reduce the spread of a deadly infection by keeping a physical distance from people in other households. Again, I don't agree with a government mandating by law who is allowed to visit private houses, but it makes sense for people to be encouraged to do this as part of a public health response to a pandemic.
What really disturbs me about the dominant reaction against masks/isolation is that instead of focusing on objections around the legal overreach, the baby is thrown out with the bathwater and opponents seem to fall into a conspiratorial rabbit hole of denying that there should be any public health response at all.
If you want to go after the people responsible for the legal overreach, that was Johnson and the then Conservative administration. The recommendations going into government, as demonstrated in the COVID Inquiry, was not to go down the route of heavy enforcement, but to provide support so people would find it easier to follow advice. Enforcement was Boris's kneejerk reaction.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.
I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.
I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.
I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.
I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
In time moves faster as you get older news, turns out David Bowie died ten years ago. I would have guessed five.
Have a guess what else happened ten years ago?
Ah, sorry I forgot. Prince also died. I should have remembered with Minnesota in the news.
Also Lemmy. And Victoria Wood. There was an absolute barrage of them for about 6 months. We just thought this was going to be it now - about 40 years ago there suddenly got a lot more famous people for unexplored cultural reasons, and now we were going to get big celebrity deaths weekly. And then it just went bavk to normal.
In time moves faster as you get older news, turns out David Bowie died ten years ago. I would have guessed five.
Have a guess what else happened ten years ago?
Ah, sorry I forgot. Prince also died. I should have remembered with Minnesota in the news.
Also Lemmy. And Victoria Wood. There was an absolute barrage of them for about 6 months. We just thought this was going to be it now - about 40 years ago there suddenly got a lot more famous people for unexplored cultural reasons, and now we were going to get big celebrity deaths weekly. And then it just went bavk to normal.
I've just asked Chatgpt, and the reaper was even busier than I remembered:
You said: From a UK perspective, there was a barrage of celebrity deaths between December 2015 and summer 2016. Can you remind me of some of them please? ChatGPT said: You’re remembering it correctly. From a UK point of view, late 2015 through summer 2016 felt unusually relentless, especially for music, comedy, and TV figures who were household names. Here’s a reminder of some of the most prominent losses from that period, roughly in chronological order:
Late 2015
Lemmy Kilmister (Motörhead) – 28 December 2015 A huge shock just days after his 70th birthday, closing a grim year for music fans.
Early 2016
David Bowie – 10 January 2016 His death, only two days after releasing Blackstar, set the tone for how shocking the year felt.
Alan Rickman – 14 January 2016 Deeply mourned in the UK for roles from Harry Potter to Robin Hood.
Terry Wogan – 31 January 2016 One of the most familiar and trusted voices on British radio and television.
Harper Lee – 19 February 2016 Not British, but widely mourned in the UK due to To Kill a Mockingbird’s cultural impact.
Keith Emerson (Emerson, Lake & Palmer) – 11 March 2016 A major figure in progressive rock.
Sir George Martin – 8 March 2016 Often called “the fifth Beatle”, his death hit particularly hard in Britain.
Paul Daniels – 17 March 2016 A defining figure of British light entertainment.
Ronnie Corbett – 31 March 2016 One half of The Two Ronnies, widely described as a national treasure.
Spring 2016
Victoria Wood – 20 April 2016 Her death prompted an outpouring of affection across the UK comedy world.
Prince – 21 April 2016 Not British, but enormously influential and heavily covered in the UK media.
Summer 2016
Muhammad Ali – 3 June 2016 A global icon whose death dominated news coverage in the UK.
Caroline Aherne – 2 July 2016 Creator of The Royle Family and a hugely respected comic voice.
Gene Wilder – 29 August 2016 Slightly later in the summer, but often grouped into that same bleak run of losses
In time moves faster as you get older news, turns out David Bowie died ten years ago. I would have guessed five.
Have a guess what else happened ten years ago?
Ah, sorry I forgot. Prince also died. I should have remembered with Minnesota in the news.
Also Lemmy. And Victoria Wood. There was an absolute barrage of them for about 6 months. We just thought this was going to be it now - about 40 years ago there suddenly got a lot more famous people for unexplored cultural reasons, and now we were going to get big celebrity deaths weekly. And then it just went bavk to normal.
I've just asked Chatgpt, and the reaper was even busier than I remembered:
You said: From a UK perspective, there was a barrage of celebrity deaths between December 2015 and summer 2016. Can you remind me of some of them please? ChatGPT said: You’re remembering it correctly. From a UK point of view, late 2015 through summer 2016 felt unusually relentless, especially for music, comedy, and TV figures who were household names. Here’s a reminder of some of the most prominent losses from that period, roughly in chronological order:
Late 2015
Lemmy Kilmister (Motörhead) – 28 December 2015 A huge shock just days after his 70th birthday, closing a grim year for music fans.
Early 2016
David Bowie – 10 January 2016 His death, only two days after releasing Blackstar, set the tone for how shocking the year felt.
Alan Rickman – 14 January 2016 Deeply mourned in the UK for roles from Harry Potter to Robin Hood.
Terry Wogan – 31 January 2016 One of the most familiar and trusted voices on British radio and television.
Harper Lee – 19 February 2016 Not British, but widely mourned in the UK due to To Kill a Mockingbird’s cultural impact.
Keith Emerson (Emerson, Lake & Palmer) – 11 March 2016 A major figure in progressive rock.
Sir George Martin – 8 March 2016 Often called “the fifth Beatle”, his death hit particularly hard in Britain.
Paul Daniels – 17 March 2016 A defining figure of British light entertainment.
Ronnie Corbett – 31 March 2016 One half of The Two Ronnies, widely described as a national treasure.
Spring 2016
Victoria Wood – 20 April 2016 Her death prompted an outpouring of affection across the UK comedy world.
Prince – 21 April 2016 Not British, but enormously influential and heavily covered in the UK media.
Summer 2016
Muhammad Ali – 3 June 2016 A global icon whose death dominated news coverage in the UK.
Caroline Aherne – 2 July 2016 Creator of The Royle Family and a hugely respected comic voice.
Gene Wilder – 29 August 2016 Slightly later in the summer, but often grouped into that same bleak run of losses
In time moves faster as you get older news, turns out David Bowie died ten years ago. I would have guessed five.
Have a guess what else happened ten years ago?
Ah, sorry I forgot. Prince also died. I should have remembered with Minnesota in the news.
Also Lemmy. And Victoria Wood. There was an absolute barrage of them for about 6 months. We just thought this was going to be it now - about 40 years ago there suddenly got a lot more famous people for unexplored cultural reasons, and now we were going to get big celebrity deaths weekly. And then it just went bavk to normal.
I've just asked Chatgpt, and the reaper was even busier than I remembered:
You said: From a UK perspective, there was a barrage of celebrity deaths between December 2015 and summer 2016. Can you remind me of some of them please? ChatGPT said: You’re remembering it correctly. From a UK point of view, late 2015 through summer 2016 felt unusually relentless, especially for music, comedy, and TV figures who were household names. Here’s a reminder of some of the most prominent losses from that period, roughly in chronological order:
Late 2015
Lemmy Kilmister (Motörhead) – 28 December 2015 A huge shock just days after his 70th birthday, closing a grim year for music fans.
Early 2016
David Bowie – 10 January 2016 His death, only two days after releasing Blackstar, set the tone for how shocking the year felt.
Alan Rickman – 14 January 2016 Deeply mourned in the UK for roles from Harry Potter to Robin Hood.
Terry Wogan – 31 January 2016 One of the most familiar and trusted voices on British radio and television.
Harper Lee – 19 February 2016 Not British, but widely mourned in the UK due to To Kill a Mockingbird’s cultural impact.
Keith Emerson (Emerson, Lake & Palmer) – 11 March 2016 A major figure in progressive rock.
Sir George Martin – 8 March 2016 Often called “the fifth Beatle”, his death hit particularly hard in Britain.
Paul Daniels – 17 March 2016 A defining figure of British light entertainment.
Ronnie Corbett – 31 March 2016 One half of The Two Ronnies, widely described as a national treasure.
Spring 2016
Victoria Wood – 20 April 2016 Her death prompted an outpouring of affection across the UK comedy world.
Prince – 21 April 2016 Not British, but enormously influential and heavily covered in the UK media.
Summer 2016
Muhammad Ali – 3 June 2016 A global icon whose death dominated news coverage in the UK.
Caroline Aherne – 2 July 2016 Creator of The Royle Family and a hugely respected comic voice.
Gene Wilder – 29 August 2016 Slightly later in the summer, but often grouped into that same bleak run of losses
It is Muhammad Ali's birthday in 5 minutes time.
That's a singular fact to have to your fingertips. I'm guessing it might therefore also be your birthday, or perhaps that of someone you know well. If the former, happy birthday to you!
This isn’t normal. Trump was given a rare second chance, briefly hit 50%, and is now back below 40%. Voters don’t hand out third chances. The problem isn’t just the economy anymore — it’s growing doubts about [Trump’s actions on] democracy itself.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.
I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.
I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
what absolute nonsense, same old tories always blaming someone else.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.
I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.
I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".
The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
To my mind the scientists and bureaucrats who forced lockdown and masks on the country are as bad as the bankers who forced the state to bail them out for tens of billions. Both parties should have been put away for a very long time. At least with the bank bailouts we got most of our money back. Those scientists cost the nation £500bn in borrowing plus all of the interest we'll pay in perpetuity, we will never get any of it back.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.
I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.
I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
In jail for what? Giving their honest view to an elected Government and then implementing instructions?
Do you really think that's all they did? No media briefings, no calls to journalists telling them that if the politicians didn't fall in line that the NHS would collapse, no threats to politicians who disagreed with them, no "monitoring" of social media to use the arms of the state to silence those who disagreed with them under the guise of "unity".
The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
None of those things come anywhere near the level of a criminal offence.
You are letting politicians off the hook. Politicians in other countries had more courage.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.
I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.
I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
I'm sorry, they were advisors. They advised.
You essentially want to criminalize people coming to conclusions other than you. That's insane.
A December 29th article in the NYT led me to this promising start up, Phoenix Tailings:
Phoenix Tailings is restoring U.S. industrial independence by building the domestic refining capacity needed to make metals for every major technology. Our mission is to redefine the metals industry by creating the first fully clean mining and metals production company. Phoenix Tailings is built to power the future.
Their operation in Massachusetts was founded by — no big surprise — some products of MIT.
As I learned in recent years, “rare earths” are neither rare, nor earths. They have been difficult and messy to refine, especially if you want to avoid nasty environmental problems. Which helps explain why the ChiComs have such a grip on their production.
If there is a problem that can be solved by a gadget, or gadgets, we Americans are good people to ask to do it.
And so are Brits, though too many don't recognize how good the UK often is at solving that class of problems.
This isn’t normal. Trump was given a rare second chance, briefly hit 50%, and is now back below 40%. Voters don’t hand out third chances. The problem isn’t just the economy anymore — it’s growing doubts about [Trump’s actions on] democracy itself.
And it took them this long to worry about Trumps threats to democracy . 8 years of his disgusting behaviour and many still voted for him . They can fxck right off . Everything Kamala said would happen has. I’m also sick of the crap that she was a bad candidate . Against Trump any sane country would have shown him the door.
To my mind the scientists and bureaucrats who forced lockdown and masks on the country are as bad as the bankers who forced the state to bail them out for tens of billions. Both parties should have been put away for a very long time. At least with the bank bailouts we got most of our money back. Those scientists cost the nation £500bn in borrowing plus all of the interest we'll pay in perpetuity, we will never get any of it back.
I get why enforcing lockdowns can be seen as a disaster but not masks. Incredibly annoying. Maybe even unproven and unnecessary. But not really jail time crime?
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
....For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry...
Mate, I think you've suffered a coup de tete, never mind a coup d'etat.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are being investigated by the Trump Justice Department for allegedly obstructing law enforcement activities, two U.S. officials told WCCO.
It's unclear how Walz and Frey allegedly obstructed law enforcement or what they were allegedly obstructing.
This isn’t normal. Trump was given a rare second chance, briefly hit 50%, and is now back below 40%. Voters don’t hand out third chances. The problem isn’t just the economy anymore — it’s growing doubts about [Trump’s actions on] democracy itself.
And it took them this long to worry about Trumps threats to democracy . 8 years of his disgusting behaviour and many still voted for him . They can fxck right off . Everything Kamala said would happen has. I’m also sick of the crap that she was a bad candidate . Against Trump any sane country would have shown him the door.
Can there be a single newspaper or tv news person in the room who doesn't just f*cking absolutely hate Leavitt by now?
Daractenus @Daractenus It took a European journalist to finally ask this neo-nazi monster the kind of questions American journalists have failed to ask her on a daily basis for almost a year now.
To my mind the scientists and bureaucrats who forced lockdown and masks on the country are as bad as the bankers who forced the state to bail them out for tens of billions. Both parties should have been put away for a very long time. At least with the bank bailouts we got most of our money back. Those scientists cost the nation £500bn in borrowing plus all of the interest we'll pay in perpetuity, we will never get any of it back.
People who wore masks during lockdown care about their health and that of others. People who didn't, er, didn't.
To my mind the scientists and bureaucrats who forced lockdown and masks on the country are as bad as the bankers who forced the state to bail them out for tens of billions. Both parties should have been put away for a very long time. At least with the bank bailouts we got most of our money back. Those scientists cost the nation £500bn in borrowing plus all of the interest we'll pay in perpetuity, we will never get any of it back.
I remember that time and the simple fact is that the lockdowns, WFH etc weren't forced on the British people but were in fact eagerly welcomed and trailing the decisions that the country had already made. Britain is a safe country not a free country, and Covid just let that genie out. If you want to jail those who encouraged and enforced it, you'll have to build prison cells for over sixty million people.
I can see and understand the rationale of banning u16s from social media, but how is social media to be defined?
For the policy to meet its objectives, mustn’t we ban children from any online chat or messaging service, and any use of group messaging at all?
And how can any of it be effectively enforced?
Bans from social media for under 16s would mean mandatory digital ID for the rest of us. Good luck with that. I'll use a VPN or failing that, emigrate, before I'll hand over my ID to Twitter, Facebook etc.
And that's before, to your point, we consider what social media is defined as.
How many of you would be happy to hand over a copy of your ID to the admins here before posting on PB?
Once again the state dresses up the march towards a draconian "papers please" society in the wrapping paper of "protecting the kids". I have two words for to say to that, and the second one is "off".
Just for some balance (because PB leans heavily towards this kind of view), the YouGov poll on this from December found 74% support for this policy (19% against). In Australia they just have a list of sites - there are obvious grey areas around things like gaming; whatsapp is not included.
Unfortunately I have a near total lack of faith in the UK to be sensible. The precedent set by the online safety act suggests a poorly worded, blanket, catch-all ban with far reaching consequences. Hence why half the internet is unusable from home now without a VPN due to sites like imgur cutting off UK access or hobbyist subreddits such as beer brewing being off limits to UK users without handing over ID etc. IIRC some gaming mod sites won't even let you download mods without handing over your papers unless you use a VPN now.
Like I say. A march towards a papers please society dressed up in hysterical "won't someone please think of the children" language despite the fact the children know very well how to circumvent these bans.
It's a ludicrous policy..💩 which seems to have a very high level of support on this forum..🥴 But then so did face masks and social distancing..
Facemasks and social distancing are effective at stopping the spread of respiratory diseases. To be contrarian about those for the sake of being contrarian reminds me of the best headline ever to describe similar views currently circulating in the US…
Indeed: one can argue that the costs were greater than the benefits*, but to argue that somehow staying away from other people and wearing masks doesn't reduce the spread of disease displays a starting sense of stupidity.
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
And on the flip side I'll chime in to say fuck masks and fuck lockdown. Any perceived benefits never justified the costs of either of them and society has been permanently and irreparably harmed by both policies as well as everything else that accompanied them like social distancing and furlough.
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Of course fuck lockdowns: the UK had a shocklingly shit experience.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
Without a reckoning for the guilty parties including and not limited to substantial jail time there will be no deterrent for these bureaucrats and technocrats to take over the running of the country in the next crisis. It is clear that they went well beyond advice and forced their own policies onto the government of the day using media briefings and threats.
I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.
I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
I'm sorry, they were advisors. They advised.
You essentially want to criminalize people coming to conclusions other than you. That's insane.
Not only that but to make retrospective laws to punish them.
A December 29th article in the NYT led me to this promising start up, Phoenix Tailings:
Phoenix Tailings is restoring U.S. industrial independence by building the domestic refining capacity needed to make metals for every major technology. Our mission is to redefine the metals industry by creating the first fully clean mining and metals production company. Phoenix Tailings is built to power the future.
Their operation in Massachusetts was founded by — no big surprise — some products of MIT.
As I learned in recent years, “rare earths” are neither rare, nor earths. They have been difficult and messy to refine, especially if you want to avoid nasty environmental problems. Which helps explain why the ChiComs have such a grip on their production.
If there is a problem that can be solved by a gadget, or gadgets, we Americans are good people to ask to do it.
And so are Brits, though too many don't recognize how good the UK often is at solving that class of problems.
Comments
I think she will survive May now whatever the result. There's also a good chance that the Tories will outperform expectations quite handily.
I stick by my prediction that the Tories are heading for ~28% at the next GE and will be the single largest party ahead of Reform and Labour. The recovery is coming, I can feel it. There's something in the air.
As for culture war it's basically unavoidable because the left insists on fighting one. Ignoring it means that people like Craig Guildford behave in ways entirely typical of senior police officers. If you can't be bothered to stand up to pro FGM/segregation/speech policing authoritarians that's your choice.
In fact, I though much of it necessary.
Jenrick was putting his finger on some core issues, and rather effectively.
The trouble is that he's a disloyal and nasty arsehole. That's why he's gone. Not because he was fundamentally wrong.
Only two people have ever accepted a second-hand Nobel Prize as a gift.
One of them was Joseph Goebbels.
https://x.com/JamieBonkiewicz/status/2012266125774471659
Former PM Sir Tony Blair confirmed as member of President Trump's "Board of Peace" for Gaza
@sentdefender
European military personnel and equipment from Denmark, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have begun to arrive in Greenland as part of an “advance team” to coordinate the deployment of a full force to the island as part of Dutch exercise Arctic Sentry, which will see the defense of the island and the Arctic bolstered by aircraft, ships, and troops from allies in Europe.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2012259290333991214
It isn’t that Streeting is absurdly ambitious; we all know that.
Neither is it that Streeting may or may not have done this or that. Or anything to do with the relationship between Starmer and Streeting,
The story there is that Streeting is seriously pissing off the rest of his cabinet colleagues. Who, barring a brutal clear out, are mostly the same people Streeting would be looking to for loyalty and support if he ever did get the top job.
People talk about the "culture war" and being fed up but again that to me is just liberals telling right wingers to give up and knuckle under the woke nonsense like men in dresses being able to enter women's single sex spaces. I'd like to remind @DavidL that until a couple of years ago those of us who spoke out against the transgender nonsense were being called culture warriors on the wrong side of history and that we should stop moaning. So being told that the culture wars tried his patience really just shows how shallow his own read of the situation is.
The same goes for the ECHR argument, it may seem incessant, yet it is fundamental to our being able to control the border, deport illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and fake asylum seekers. If we don't reform or leave the ECHR the national border may as well not exist. So yes the argument may go against the liberal consensus but without making the change the UK will continue to have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and fake asylum seekers arrive every year without being able to deport them.
On all of those points the Tories need to have hard thinking, come up with realistic plans and show that they understand that the nation is fed up of the liberal consensus that has led to a record fall in living standards for the past two decades and show a lot of contrition for taking part in it for the past 14 years.
Amy Klobuchar
@amyklobuchar
·
4h
There are now more ICE agents in MN than there are police in the 10 largest metro police departments combined.
https://x.com/amyklobuchar/status/2012221930904969560
So yes he can see the issues but I don't think he was ever the right guy to deal with them and could never be leader.
Rome sometimes took thousands of casualties, defending its allies from attacks by third parties. Why? Because it understood that its own credibility was on the line, should it fail to do so.
“It’s utter buffoonery to think that we should compel Greenland to be part of the United States,”
"You’ve spoke, we’ve listened."
https://x.com/bphillipsonMP/status/2012197706391806004
I've come to think that the American fixation with guns is in many ways a form of rebellion against Nietzsche's last man; the sort of passive, comfortable herbivore man of modern Europe.
It is deeply fucked up.
And it's made worse by people sharing AI generated videos. (Including one Musk, E.)
* Indeed: my schtick for about the last five years is that about 20% of the measures could have had 80% of the benefit. And I think most of the US -and particularly California**- got the balance more right (except on the issue of schools) than the UK.
** Although California did some stupid things too. Like requiring that each alternate chair on the ski lift (as in the one in front of you, not the one next to you) was empty. Meaning that there were masses of people at the bottom of the lift in a huddle, because the capacity of lifts was cut in half. Totally idiotic.
A possible problem is that transmen, individuals on testosterone who look masculine and who may have had a phalloplasty or metoidioplasty, are now expected to use women's changing rooms.
Europe has some of the most and least religious cultures, the most right wing and left wing polities, liberal and authoritarian, some of the lowest taxes and the highest, some of the highest and lowest rates of obesity, highest and lowest levels of gun ownership in the world. Yes there are some more standardised things, largely thanks to the single market: tough consumer regulation, relatively low levels of air and water pollution, slick cross border financial services and telecoms. But beyond that it’s a cornucopia of diversity.
One of the big problems Ukraine has had is an inability to spread good practice from the most effective brigades to the rest of the army. Jack Watling from RUSI has said that the manpower shortage has meant they can't build the sort of training programme that would enable that to happen.
This is something the new defence minister will be able to address. He had a good track record in his previous post as minister for digital transformation.
(And a few people here still even think Trump was the right choice in 2024!)
Because it’s all over social media and it’s based on nothing.
The second part of the sentence is partly correct. There has been a fall (not a record one), for most in the developed world. Except the super rich of course. But all the evidence shows it’s down to repeated crises since 2008 (the financial crisis and its fallout, commodity price hikes, Covid, Ukraine etc), global economic competition, and most of all ageing demographics.
Which is the sort of nonsense that has led us to having to send troops to Greenland!
All of the bureaucrats and scientists need to pay the price for forcing these policies on the country. I hope that if we get a Reform government they'll put the guilty people in jail and throw away the key.
Surprised it is that low given that Putin's Russian military command just throws raw, virtually unarmed recruits, many of them drunk out of their box, in to the meat grinder.
*one irony of the insistence of ICE Sturmabteilung men always wearing masks is that they are the same people that refused to wear masks in covid, and also object to Islamic Niqab.
But the advice given in the US was little different to the advice given in the UK, it's just the politicians chose a different balance.
The idea that you should get people to 'pay a price' is staggering. They existed in an uncertain world, and gave their best answer, aware that if it turned out differently, they might have been responsible for millions of deaths.
Similarly, it makes sense to reduce the spread of a deadly infection by keeping a physical distance from people in other households. Again, I don't agree with a government mandating by law who is allowed to visit private houses, but it makes sense for people to be encouraged to do this as part of a public health response to a pandemic.
What really disturbs me about the dominant reaction against masks/isolation is that instead of focusing on objections around the legal overreach, the baby is thrown out with the bathwater and opponents seem to fall into a conspiratorial rabbit hole of denying that there should be any public health response at all.
There’s social policy, then there’s economic policy. The two have very little to do with each other. There are economically successful and unsuccessful socially liberal countries, and successful and unsuccessful conservative ones.
The only reason they get conflated is the totalising nature of the culture war that the internet age has fostered and the USA has exported.
I didn't vote for Vallance and Whitty. No one did. During those two years they substantially ran government policy, they were unaccountable to the public and completely untouchable. Fauci similarly so in the US. It wasn't just them though, there was a cottage industry of politicised scientists all attempting to push their own agendas under the guise of "safety" and "save the NHS" which allowed them to reshape the country without a single vote being cast. For two years there was a coup de tat by technocrats and then they had the temerity to clear themselves of any wrongdoing in the subsequent inquiry.
I'm not for a Reform government, yet I will shed no tears if one comes and they put the lot of these usurpers in jail.
Sir Robert Buckland issues a scathing rebuke of Robert Jenrick's decision to abandon the Tory party.'
https://x.com/TalkTV/status/2012098148601110893?s=20
You said:
From a UK perspective, there was a barrage of celebrity deaths between December 2015 and summer 2016. Can you remind me of some of them please?
ChatGPT said:
You’re remembering it correctly. From a UK point of view, late 2015 through summer 2016 felt unusually relentless, especially for music, comedy, and TV figures who were household names. Here’s a reminder of some of the most prominent losses from that period, roughly in chronological order:
Late 2015
Lemmy Kilmister (Motörhead) – 28 December 2015
A huge shock just days after his 70th birthday, closing a grim year for music fans.
Early 2016
David Bowie – 10 January 2016
His death, only two days after releasing Blackstar, set the tone for how shocking the year felt.
Alan Rickman – 14 January 2016
Deeply mourned in the UK for roles from Harry Potter to Robin Hood.
Terry Wogan – 31 January 2016
One of the most familiar and trusted voices on British radio and television.
Harper Lee – 19 February 2016
Not British, but widely mourned in the UK due to To Kill a Mockingbird’s cultural impact.
Keith Emerson (Emerson, Lake & Palmer) – 11 March 2016
A major figure in progressive rock.
Sir George Martin – 8 March 2016
Often called “the fifth Beatle”, his death hit particularly hard in Britain.
Paul Daniels – 17 March 2016
A defining figure of British light entertainment.
Ronnie Corbett – 31 March 2016
One half of The Two Ronnies, widely described as a national treasure.
Spring 2016
Victoria Wood – 20 April 2016
Her death prompted an outpouring of affection across the UK comedy world.
Prince – 21 April 2016
Not British, but enormously influential and heavily covered in the UK media.
Summer 2016
Muhammad Ali – 3 June 2016
A global icon whose death dominated news coverage in the UK.
Caroline Aherne – 2 July 2016
Creator of The Royle Family and a hugely respected comic voice.
Gene Wilder – 29 August 2016
Slightly later in the summer, but often grouped into that same bleak run of losses
Trump has solid 35% maga base. it aint enough. indies are starting to get real concerns about threat to democracy.
Larry Sabato
@LarrySabato
This isn’t normal. Trump was given a rare second chance, briefly hit 50%, and is now back below 40%. Voters don’t hand out third chances. The problem isn’t just the economy anymore — it’s growing doubts about [Trump’s actions on] democracy itself.
https://x.com/LarrySabato/status/2012278069092851759
The scientists and bureaucrats perpetrated a silent takeover of the government. No one voted for that. You may argue that people would have voted for it but it was never put to the public.
You are letting politicians off the hook. Politicians in other countries had more courage.
You essentially want to criminalize people coming to conclusions other than you. That's insane.
A December 29th article in the NYT led me to this promising start up, Phoenix Tailings: https://phoenixtailings.com/
Their operation in Massachusetts was founded by — no big surprise — some products of MIT.
As I learned in recent years, “rare earths” are neither rare, nor earths. They have been difficult and messy to refine, especially if you want to avoid nasty environmental problems. Which helps explain why the ChiComs have such a grip on their production.
If there is a problem that can be solved by a gadget, or gadgets, we Americans are good people to ask to do it.
And so are Brits, though too many don't recognize how good the UK often is at solving that class of problems.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element )
@kylegriffin1
Breaking:
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are being investigated by the Trump Justice Department for allegedly obstructing law enforcement activities, two U.S. officials told WCCO.
It's unclear how Walz and Frey allegedly obstructed law enforcement or what they were allegedly obstructing.
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/2012301405978046856
Daractenus
@Daractenus
It took a European journalist to finally ask this neo-nazi monster the kind of questions American journalists have failed to ask her on a daily basis for almost a year now.
https://x.com/Daractenus/status/2011888763761541604
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA0VfqtIK_A
Totattly bonkers, real carpet munching bonkers.
I see Blair as a sensible enough politician to detect before long that it will be a rudderless shitshow. I hope not, but I cannot see another outcome.
Their operation in Massachusetts was founded by — no big surprise — some products of MIT.
As I learned in recent years, “rare earths” are neither rare, nor earths. They have been difficult and messy to refine, especially if you want to avoid nasty environmental problems. Which helps explain why the ChiComs have such a grip on their production.
If there is a problem that can be solved by a gadget, or gadgets, we Americans are good people to ask to do it.
And so are Brits, though too many don't recognize how good the UK often is at solving that class of problems.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element )
You need to have been reading Tim Worstall's blog for the last 20 years