One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
You will if we go deep. No true patriot can remain unmoved in that event. Bet you any money I'm right. You might not be able to get into the football itself but you'll be rooting hard for us to do it. Just simply because of the joy it will bring to so many English people.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
Isn't that the 'corporate hospitality' thing? Take your clients to a big match and don't bother to watch it?
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
It could be all the people who bought tickets but have had their visas revoked.
🚨 NEW: Ed Miliband wants to be Andy Burnham's Chancellor
Source: “Ed is clearly working on the basis of that is what he wants, and that’s what he is assuming he will get”
How is that 'new'???
This has been expected and discussed for weeks now.
Edit: However, I have a few quid on Louise Haigh being CoE at 30/1 based on Guardian article the other day that made it clear she has been his 'right hand man' as it were for weeks throughout this march on Westminster.
"There's an emerging consensus that equality laws are illiberal and counter-productive. It doesn't make any sense for the Tories to swim against the tide just because the Cameron government was responsible for a lot of it."
What a load of utter nonsense.
The Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating anti-discrimination provisions dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. It was also passed by a Labour government not Cameron.
There is certainly a campaign by various different groups of idiots to remove certain sex-based rights and anti-discrimination measures, which will also impact gay people and religious people, and to put such groups back in the position they were in in the 1960's and 1970's. That would certainly be extremely illiberal and it is a great pity that the Tories are falling for this nonsense, just as some of the dimmer Labour MPs, much of the Lib Dems and the Greens have done.
Unlike US feminism, from memory British feminism started becoming discontented with equality around 2010, noting that sometimes it led to outcomes that were not good for women, or at least worse than the status quo ante. This escalated until around 2021 when Julie Bindel published "Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation", which provided (restated?) a theoretical justification for pursuing goals that were inequitable and inegalitarian but were better for women. Thus fortified, British feminists were free to pursue goals that focussed exclusively on the benefit to women, even if they led to inequality
This is illustrated by your phrase "sex-based rights" and other phrases like"fairness" and the gender-critical networks preceded by "SEEN" - an acronym meaning "Sex Equality And Equity Network" - pay homage to that.
You may recall that I've mentioned Robert Reilly before, and his work on tracking wars of ideas. One technique is to track the popularity of shibboleths and cant phrases over time. I think that the rise of fairness-based phrases and the fall of equality-based phrases demonstrates that @williamglenn is onto something, albeit not something I like.
I do not remember the people you have mentioned nor have I read the books you cite.
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
OK, I'm sure it's lovely for the players, but does anyone else give a shit about it? Even the flags at the local flaggy football pub seem a bit forlorn.
England and Scotland haven't played yet. It always feels a bit pointless when it's just stupid teams like Curacao or Qatar or the USA playing. Once our lads hit the pitch you start to feel it again. I already watched a bit of South Africa vs Mexico with my son the other night.
You will if we go deep. No true patriot can remain unmoved in that event. Bet you any money I'm right. You might not be able to get into the football itself but you'll be rooting hard for us to do it. Just simply because of the joy it will bring to so many English people.
Probably, but that will be for different reasons to the love of football.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
It could be all the people who bought tickets but have had their visas revoked.
Are there issues for fans going to Mexico or Canada?
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
It could be all the people who bought tickets but have had their visas revoked.
Are there issues for fans going to Mexico or Canada?
How many fans will either support a team only playing in Mexico or Canada, or will need to fly via the USA to get to Mexico (not so much Canada)?
OK, I'm sure it's lovely for the players, but does anyone else give a shit about it? Even the flags at the local flaggy football pub seem a bit forlorn.
England and Scotland haven't played yet. It always feels a bit pointless when it's just stupid teams like Curacao or Qatar or the USA playing. Once our lads hit the pitch you start to feel it again. I already watched a bit of South Africa vs Mexico with my son the other night.
"There's an emerging consensus that equality laws are illiberal and counter-productive. It doesn't make any sense for the Tories to swim against the tide just because the Cameron government was responsible for a lot of it."
What a load of utter nonsense.
The Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating anti-discrimination provisions dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. It was also passed by a Labour government not Cameron.
There is certainly a campaign by various different groups of idiots to remove certain sex-based rights and anti-discrimination measures, which will also impact gay people and religious people, and to put such groups back in the position they were in in the 1960's and 1970's. That would certainly be extremely illiberal and it is a great pity that the Tories are falling for this nonsense, just as some of the dimmer Labour MPs, much of the Lib Dems and the Greens have done.
Unlike US feminism, from memory British feminism started becoming discontented with equality around 2010, noting that sometimes it led to outcomes that were not good for women, or at least worse than the status quo ante. This escalated until around 2021 when Julie Bindel published "Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation", which provided (restated?) a theoretical justification for pursuing goals that were inequitable and inegalitarian but were better for women. Thus fortified, British feminists were free to pursue goals that focussed exclusively on the benefit to women, even if they led to inequality
This is illustrated by your phrase "sex-based rights" and other phrases like"fairness" and the gender-critical networks preceded by "SEEN" - an acronym meaning "Sex Equality And Equity Network" - pay homage to that.
You may recall that I've mentioned Robert Reilly before, and his work on tracking wars of ideas. One technique is to track the popularity of shibboleths and cant phrases over time. I think that the rise of fairness-based phrases and the fall of equality-based phrases demonstrates that @williamglenn is onto something, albeit not something I like.
I do not remember the people you have mentioned nor have I read the books you cite.
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
Oh, fair points, but I have to find a way to describe the world and how it happens. I have less power than an asthmatic ant so ultimately all I really do is note what is happening and write it down, usually using maths in some way. Much as I would like to wave a wand and set the world to rights, I can't. If it helps, I hate that as well.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
It could be all the people who bought tickets but have had their visas revoked.
Are there issues for fans going to Mexico or Canada?
How many fans will either support a team only playing in Mexico or Canada, or will need to fly via the USA to get to Mexico (not so much Canada)?
There are direct flights to Mexico from many European countries (a very quick check sees direct flights from Heathrow, Madrid and Frankfurt for starters).
"There's an emerging consensus that equality laws are illiberal and counter-productive. It doesn't make any sense for the Tories to swim against the tide just because the Cameron government was responsible for a lot of it."
What a load of utter nonsense.
The Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating anti-discrimination provisions dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. It was also passed by a Labour government not Cameron.
There is certainly a campaign by various different groups of idiots to remove certain sex-based rights and anti-discrimination measures, which will also impact gay people and religious people, and to put such groups back in the position they were in in the 1960's and 1970's. That would certainly be extremely illiberal and it is a great pity that the Tories are falling for this nonsense, just as some of the dimmer Labour MPs, much of the Lib Dems and the Greens have done.
Unlike US feminism, from memory British feminism started becoming discontented with equality around 2010, noting that sometimes it led to outcomes that were not good for women, or at least worse than the status quo ante. This escalated until around 2021 when Julie Bindel published "Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation", which provided (restated?) a theoretical justification for pursuing goals that were inequitable and inegalitarian but were better for women. Thus fortified, British feminists were free to pursue goals that focussed exclusively on the benefit to women, even if they led to inequality
This is illustrated by your phrase "sex-based rights" and other phrases like"fairness" and the gender-critical networks preceded by "SEEN" - an acronym meaning "Sex Equality And Equity Network" - pay homage to that.
You may recall that I've mentioned Robert Reilly before, and his work on tracking wars of ideas. One technique is to track the popularity of shibboleths and cant phrases over time. I think that the rise of fairness-based phrases and the fall of equality-based phrases demonstrates that @williamglenn is onto something, albeit not something I like.
I do not remember the people you have mentioned nor have I read the books you cite.
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
Oh, fair points, but I have to find a way to describe the world and how it happens. I have less power than an asthmatic ant so ultimately all I really do is note what is happening and write it down, usually using maths in some way. Much as I would like to wave a wand and set the world to rights, I can't. If it helps, I hate that as well.
It's good that you don't, because you'd probably make it worse.
You will if we go deep. No true patriot can remain unmoved in that event. Bet you any money I'm right. You might not be able to get into the football itself but you'll be rooting hard for us to do it. Just simply because of the joy it will bring to so many English people.
Probably, but that will be for different reasons to the love of football.
Which I just don't have.
I don't love football but I do like it. I think that objectively it is the best sport. There's a reason it is the most widely played game in the world.
"There's an emerging consensus that equality laws are illiberal and counter-productive. It doesn't make any sense for the Tories to swim against the tide just because the Cameron government was responsible for a lot of it."
What a load of utter nonsense.
The Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating anti-discrimination provisions dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. It was also passed by a Labour government not Cameron.
There is certainly a campaign by various different groups of idiots to remove certain sex-based rights and anti-discrimination measures, which will also impact gay people and religious people, and to put such groups back in the position they were in in the 1960's and 1970's. That would certainly be extremely illiberal and it is a great pity that the Tories are falling for this nonsense, just as some of the dimmer Labour MPs, much of the Lib Dems and the Greens have done.
Unlike US feminism, from memory British feminism started becoming discontented with equality around 2010, noting that sometimes it led to outcomes that were not good for women, or at least worse than the status quo ante. This escalated until around 2021 when Julie Bindel published "Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation", which provided (restated?) a theoretical justification for pursuing goals that were inequitable and inegalitarian but were better for women. Thus fortified, British feminists were free to pursue goals that focussed exclusively on the benefit to women, even if they led to inequality
This is illustrated by your phrase "sex-based rights" and other phrases like"fairness" and the gender-critical networks preceded by "SEEN" - an acronym meaning "Sex Equality And Equity Network" - pay homage to that.
You may recall that I've mentioned Robert Reilly before, and his work on tracking wars of ideas. One technique is to track the popularity of shibboleths and cant phrases over time. I think that the rise of fairness-based phrases and the fall of equality-based phrases demonstrates that @williamglenn is onto something, albeit not something I like.
I do not remember the people you have mentioned nor have I read the books you cite.
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
Question for you: Do you see the permissive (compared to ours) laws on gender change that several countries have as a bigger threat to female equality/empowerment than the sort of reactionary attitudes that are fueling the populist right?
You will if we go deep. No true patriot can remain unmoved in that event. Bet you any money I'm right. You might not be able to get into the football itself but you'll be rooting hard for us to do it. Just simply because of the joy it will bring to so many English people.
Probably, but that will be for different reasons to the love of football.
Which I just don't have.
I don't love football but I do like it. I think that objectively it is the best sport. There's a reason it is the most widely played game in the world.
Really? I don't feel that strongly either way, but objectively I feel there are sports far more worth of our attention. Football is surely exciting only because it is popular and therefore fits well with a global competition because there are at least 48 teams who have enough of a stake to travel to proto-fascist USA and brave the border guards. If the whole world went mad about, say, speed bouldering, do you not think the next few weeks would be slightly more interesting?
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
It could be all the people who bought tickets but have had their visas revoked.
These empyy seats were in Mexico and Canada. There hasn't been a match in the USA yet.
"There's an emerging consensus that equality laws are illiberal and counter-productive. It doesn't make any sense for the Tories to swim against the tide just because the Cameron government was responsible for a lot of it."
What a load of utter nonsense.
The Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating anti-discrimination provisions dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. It was also passed by a Labour government not Cameron.
There is certainly a campaign by various different groups of idiots to remove certain sex-based rights and anti-discrimination measures, which will also impact gay people and religious people, and to put such groups back in the position they were in in the 1960's and 1970's. That would certainly be extremely illiberal and it is a great pity that the Tories are falling for this nonsense, just as some of the dimmer Labour MPs, much of the Lib Dems and the Greens have done.
Unlike US feminism, from memory British feminism started becoming discontented with equality around 2010, noting that sometimes it led to outcomes that were not good for women, or at least worse than the status quo ante. This escalated until around 2021 when Julie Bindel published "Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation", which provided (restated?) a theoretical justification for pursuing goals that were inequitable and inegalitarian but were better for women. Thus fortified, British feminists were free to pursue goals that focussed exclusively on the benefit to women, even if they led to inequality
This is illustrated by your phrase "sex-based rights" and other phrases like"fairness" and the gender-critical networks preceded by "SEEN" - an acronym meaning "Sex Equality And Equity Network" - pay homage to that.
You may recall that I've mentioned Robert Reilly before, and his work on tracking wars of ideas. One technique is to track the popularity of shibboleths and cant phrases over time. I think that the rise of fairness-based phrases and the fall of equality-based phrases demonstrates that @williamglenn is onto something, albeit not something I like.
I do not remember the people you have mentioned nor have I read the books you cite.
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
Oh, fair points, but I have to find a way to describe the world and how it happens. I have less power than an asthmatic ant so ultimately all I really do is note what is happening and write it down, usually using maths in some way. Much as I would like to wave a wand and set the world to rights, I can't. If it helps, I hate that as well.
It's good that you don't, because you'd probably make it worse...
I'll bear that in mind should I ever ascend to godhood. After I get my teeth fixed.
One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”
Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.
Peter.
yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV
It could be all the people who bought tickets but have had their visas revoked.
Are there issues for fans going to Mexico or Canada?
How many fans will either support a team only playing in Mexico or Canada, or will need to fly via the USA to get to Mexico (not so much Canada)?
Given that Canada has blocked a Ghana player from entering the country, I'd not assume fans are guaranteed free passage.
"There's an emerging consensus that equality laws are illiberal and counter-productive. It doesn't make any sense for the Tories to swim against the tide just because the Cameron government was responsible for a lot of it."
What a load of utter nonsense.
The Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating anti-discrimination provisions dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. It was also passed by a Labour government not Cameron.
There is certainly a campaign by various different groups of idiots to remove certain sex-based rights and anti-discrimination measures, which will also impact gay people and religious people, and to put such groups back in the position they were in in the 1960's and 1970's. That would certainly be extremely illiberal and it is a great pity that the Tories are falling for this nonsense, just as some of the dimmer Labour MPs, much of the Lib Dems and the Greens have done.
Unlike US feminism, from memory British feminism started becoming discontented with equality around 2010, noting that sometimes it led to outcomes that were not good for women, or at least worse than the status quo ante. This escalated until around 2021 when Julie Bindel published "Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation", which provided (restated?) a theoretical justification for pursuing goals that were inequitable and inegalitarian but were better for women. Thus fortified, British feminists were free to pursue goals that focussed exclusively on the benefit to women, even if they led to inequality
This is illustrated by your phrase "sex-based rights" and other phrases like"fairness" and the gender-critical networks preceded by "SEEN" - an acronym meaning "Sex Equality And Equity Network" - pay homage to that.
You may recall that I've mentioned Robert Reilly before, and his work on tracking wars of ideas. One technique is to track the popularity of shibboleths and cant phrases over time. I think that the rise of fairness-based phrases and the fall of equality-based phrases demonstrates that @williamglenn is onto something, albeit not something I like.
I do not remember the people you have mentioned nor have I read the books you cite.
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
I had not seen that from Lib Dems in Kingston. It is worse than "advice"; it was part of an official Equalities Impact Assessment attached to a proposal to expand the Borough's provision of dockless e-assisted cycles. They hold 44 from 48 seats.
It’s true, as soon as I started cycling again as an adult I found myself yelling “alright darlin’!” at every young woman I passed. I also started smoking a pipe, falling asleep while reading a newspaper on Sundays and developed an uncontrollable urge to explain things to random strangers.
iIt is up there with newspapers nearly always publishing photos of "cyclists" in lycra wearing helmets.
You will if we go deep. No true patriot can remain unmoved in that event. Bet you any money I'm right. You might not be able to get into the football itself but you'll be rooting hard for us to do it. Just simply because of the joy it will bring to so many English people.
Probably, but that will be for different reasons to the love of football.
Which I just don't have.
I don't love football but I do like it. I think that objectively it is the best sport. There's a reason it is the most widely played game in the world.
Really? I don't feel that strongly either way, but objectively I feel there are sports far more worth of our attention. Football is surely exciting only because it is popular and therefore fits well with a global competition because there are at least 48 teams who have enough of a stake to travel to proto-fascist USA and brave the border guards. If the whole world went mad about, say, speed bouldering, do you not think the next few weeks would be slightly more interesting?
No, I don't. Football is a very exciting game, a great mix of team effort and individual brilliance, fast moving and athletic but also tactical and celebral. It doesn't favour a particular body type. It can be played at any kind of skill level so you can enjoy a kickabout in the local park with your mates and then watch Real Madrid and it is the same game. In fact, the way that you can trace the game from the grassroots to the highest level is one of the fascinating things about it, eg that Ian Wright used to play for a club, when he was a kid, that my son's team plays against in the local Sunday league. It is endlessly absorbing to watch. This is before you account for its global reach or the fierce hyper local loyalties it engenders. And I say this as someone who is not especially interested in sport in general.
OK, I'm sure it's lovely for the players, but does anyone else give a shit about it? Even the flags at the local flaggy football pub seem a bit forlorn.
Even in the shops, the World Cup has not taken off. Many have been sounding off about the decline of Pride month, often with a triumphalist tone, but it may be the same with the World Cup. Still, there is more than a month to go before the business end of the tournament so it has time to build.
Although come to think of it, a few trolley-loads of beer (or water) have been sold. Is that the World Cup or the summer?
I am slowly coming round to the view that England can win this thing.
Admittedly you can plot a path to the final for several other European or South American teams but I'm more worried about the physical conditions than opposing teams blocking England's second World Cup.
Anyway, we'll see how things develop. I doubt the group stage will change the odds much so there is imo no rush to bet.
"Ministers want 60% of children walking or cycling to school by 2035"
It's this kind of mind blowing "might happen in 10 years or so" policies that are really keeping on cheerleading for Keir. I mean - can you imagine only 40% of children being driven to school in a roughly ten-year timeframe?! Is this not the very definition of the "Change" manifesto?
"There's an emerging consensus that equality laws are illiberal and counter-productive. It doesn't make any sense for the Tories to swim against the tide just because the Cameron government was responsible for a lot of it."
What a load of utter nonsense.
The Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating anti-discrimination provisions dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. It was also passed by a Labour government not Cameron.
There is certainly a campaign by various different groups of idiots to remove certain sex-based rights and anti-discrimination measures, which will also impact gay people and religious people, and to put such groups back in the position they were in in the 1960's and 1970's. That would certainly be extremely illiberal and it is a great pity that the Tories are falling for this nonsense, just as some of the dimmer Labour MPs, much of the Lib Dems and the Greens have done.
Unlike US feminism, from memory British feminism started becoming discontented with equality around 2010, noting that sometimes it led to outcomes that were not good for women, or at least worse than the status quo ante. This escalated until around 2021 when Julie Bindel published "Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation", which provided (restated?) a theoretical justification for pursuing goals that were inequitable and inegalitarian but were better for women. Thus fortified, British feminists were free to pursue goals that focussed exclusively on the benefit to women, even if they led to inequality
This is illustrated by your phrase "sex-based rights" and other phrases like"fairness" and the gender-critical networks preceded by "SEEN" - an acronym meaning "Sex Equality And Equity Network" - pay homage to that.
You may recall that I've mentioned Robert Reilly before, and his work on tracking wars of ideas. One technique is to track the popularity of shibboleths and cant phrases over time. I think that the rise of fairness-based phrases and the fall of equality-based phrases demonstrates that @williamglenn is onto something, albeit not something I like.
I do not remember the people you have mentioned nor have I read the books you cite.
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
I had not seen that from Lib Dems in Kingston. It is worse than "advice"; it was part of an official Equalities Impact Assessment attached to a proposal to expand the Borough's provision of dockless e-assisted cycles. They hold 44 from 48 seats.
It’s true, as soon as I started cycling again as an adult I found myself yelling “alright darlin’!” at every young woman I passed. I also started smoking a pipe, falling asleep while reading a newspaper on Sundays and developed an uncontrollable urge to explain things to random strangers.
iIt is up there with newspapers nearly always publishing photos of "cyclists" in lycra wearing helmets.
Checking, the Assessment was written by a team of three, comprising two women and one man.
The quote is from a New Zealand academic paper about the potential benefits of e-bikes for women.
Insufficient thinking, methinks, by the officers / consultants, and Councillors not being on the ball if they checked it.
"There's an emerging consensus that equality laws are illiberal and counter-productive. It doesn't make any sense for the Tories to swim against the tide just because the Cameron government was responsible for a lot of it."
What a load of utter nonsense.
The Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating anti-discrimination provisions dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. It was also passed by a Labour government not Cameron.
There is certainly a campaign by various different groups of idiots to remove certain sex-based rights and anti-discrimination measures, which will also impact gay people and religious people, and to put such groups back in the position they were in in the 1960's and 1970's. That would certainly be extremely illiberal and it is a great pity that the Tories are falling for this nonsense, just as some of the dimmer Labour MPs, much of the Lib Dems and the Greens have done.
Unlike US feminism, from memory British feminism started becoming discontented with equality around 2010, noting that sometimes it led to outcomes that were not good for women, or at least worse than the status quo ante. This escalated until around 2021 when Julie Bindel published "Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation", which provided (restated?) a theoretical justification for pursuing goals that were inequitable and inegalitarian but were better for women. Thus fortified, British feminists were free to pursue goals that focussed exclusively on the benefit to women, even if they led to inequality
This is illustrated by your phrase "sex-based rights" and other phrases like"fairness" and the gender-critical networks preceded by "SEEN" - an acronym meaning "Sex Equality And Equity Network" - pay homage to that.
You may recall that I've mentioned Robert Reilly before, and his work on tracking wars of ideas. One technique is to track the popularity of shibboleths and cant phrases over time. I think that the rise of fairness-based phrases and the fall of equality-based phrases demonstrates that @williamglenn is onto something, albeit not something I like.
I do not remember the people you have mentioned nor have I read the books you cite.
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
I had not seen that from Lib Dems in Kingston. It is worse than "advice"; it was part of an official Equalities Impact Assessment attached to a proposal to expand the Borough's provision of dockless e-assisted cycles. They hold 44 from 48 seats.
It’s true, as soon as I started cycling again as an adult I found myself yelling “alright darlin’!” at every young woman I passed. I also started smoking a pipe, falling asleep while reading a newspaper on Sundays and developed an uncontrollable urge to explain things to random strangers.
iIt is up there with newspapers nearly always publishing photos of "cyclists" in lycra wearing helmets.
Checking, the Assessment was written by a team of three, comprising two women and one man.
The quote is from a New Zealand academic paper about the potential benefits of e-bikes for women.
Insufficient thinking, methinks, by the officers / consultants, and Councillors not being on the ball if they checked it.
Or their critics are not au fait with the gathering view that e-bikes will enable older people (and ladies, apparently) to cycle so it is fine to ban cars. Whether anyone thinks this who does not have a chauffeur...
OK, I'm sure it's lovely for the players, but does anyone else give a shit about it? Even the flags at the local flaggy football pub seem a bit forlorn.
England and Scotland haven't played yet. It always feels a bit pointless when it's just stupid teams like Curacao or Qatar or the USA playing. Once our lads hit the pitch you start to feel it again. I already watched a bit of South Africa vs Mexico with my son the other night.
I love that you watched it with your son. I have watched every opening match since 1986. The first was Mexico playing at the Azteca and I remember my father allowing me to stay up to watch it with him. 40 years later I watched the first match of the World Cup played at the Azteca and I would have given one of my balls to have been able to turn round to him and talk rubbish about football. Enjoy every moment.
"Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology"
"Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology"
If it wasn't paywalled I would read It. Are we sure the story like the other 30 or 40 recent Telegraph stories about Milliband banning stuff is based on reality or simply an unhinged headline.
"Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology"
If it wasn't paywalled I would read It. Are we sure the story like the other 30 or 40 recent Telegraph stories about Milliband banning stuff is based on reality or simply an unhinged headline.
If the plan is to phase out gas central heating anyway why wouldn’t they phase out gas fires ?
As for underfloor heating. I had it in a flat I used to live in on the Pershore Road. Expensive and inefficient.
I’d be interested to know if it is still fitted to new builds,
"Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology"
If it wasn't paywalled I would read It. Are we sure the story like the other 30 or 40 recent Telegraph stories about Milliband banning stuff is based on reality or simply an unhinged headline.
If the plan is to phase out gas central heating anyway why wouldn’t they phase out gas fires ?
As for underfloor heating. I had it in a flat I used to live in on the Pershore Road. Expensive and inefficient.
I’d be interested to know if it is still fitted to new builds,
If it’s hot water via gas it’s usually more efficient than radiators. If electric, yeah, avoid like the plague.
"Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology"
If it wasn't paywalled I would read It. Are we sure the story like the other 30 or 40 recent Telegraph stories about Milliband banning stuff is based on reality or simply an unhinged headline.
If the plan is to phase out gas central heating anyway why wouldn’t they phase out gas fires ?
As for underfloor heating. I had it in a flat I used to live in on the Pershore Road. Expensive and inefficient.
I’d be interested to know if it is still fitted to new builds,
If it’s hot water via gas it’s usually more efficient than radiators. If electric, yeah, avoid like the plague.
"Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology"
If it wasn't paywalled I would read It. Are we sure the story like the other 30 or 40 recent Telegraph stories about Milliband banning stuff is based on reality or simply an unhinged headline.
If the plan is to phase out gas central heating anyway why wouldn’t they phase out gas fires ?
As for underfloor heating. I had it in a flat I used to live in on the Pershore Road. Expensive and inefficient.
I’d be interested to know if it is still fitted to new builds,
If it’s hot water via gas it’s usually more efficient than radiators. If electric, yeah, avoid like the plague.
Mine was electric.
Here is the non-paywalled gift link to the Telegraph article:-
Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/e8b58efc12fbe181
"Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology"
If it wasn't paywalled I would read It. Are we sure the story like the other 30 or 40 recent Telegraph stories about Milliband banning stuff is based on reality or simply an unhinged headline.
I scrapped my paywall subscriptions to both the Telegraph and the Times and I can't say I'm any less informed as a result. Free sites, blogs and links cover much.
Very occasionally I still buy a paper at the weekends.
Comments
Andy Burnham
@AndyBurnhamGM
Good news to start your weekend - only six more of these videos to go! 😅
"...Possibly he is one of the most hated, useless, politically compromised fucking awful [badword] in the UK. You’re fucking welcome to him. Fucking keep him. He’s the best mate of fucking Peados like Mandelson. Fearless? A lying fucking [badword]. That’s what he is. Have him..."
(narrator: the badword in question is the one that OGH doesn't like and gets you banned)
🚨 NEW: Ed Miliband wants to be Andy Burnham's Chancellor
Source: “Ed is clearly working on the basis of that is what he wants, and that’s what he is assuming he will get”
This has been expected and discussed for weeks now.
Edit: However, I have a few quid on Louise Haigh being CoE at 30/1 based on Guardian article the other day that made it clear she has been his 'right hand man' as it were for weeks throughout this march on Westminster.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gypqp0rp9o
Girl, 17, stabbed in the neck in street attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9FRnsfsOkQ&list=RDp9FRnsfsOkQ&start_radio=1
I am not making any sort of theoretical argument about what feminism is or should be as a theory.
My position is a simple one. Women are routinely discriminated against and/or oppressed and/or face sexual violence because of their sex. Their sex. Not gender. Not anything else. Their sex. That is why we need measures such as laws to counter this. Those laws need to be based on reality and that reality revolves around sex. So women need rights based on their sex to counter this.
The attacks we are seeing now are seeking to deny this reality. If they gain traction and are acted on, then women will continue to be discriminated against etc because of their sex but will lose the ability to articulate this or take effective action against it. You cannot deal with a problem you refuse to name or deny exists. This suits many of the male sex and many politicians, businesses and others who, for a variety of reasons and from different perspectives, resent having to take action to help women live full lives in our society.
As for women so for minority groups. The same motivation which sees women's rights as some sort of optional extra which can be discarded the moment someone else demands something will be applied to minority groups.
I have seen huge changes in the position of women in my lifetime. Changes for the better. But what I am now seeing is an attempt to reverse those changes, attempts which have a worryingly high level of support among politicians who should both know better and who claim to be "progressive". They are nothing of the kind but display a worrying level of ignorance and malice. I also see - and this forum is no exception - a refusal to understand or accept this and some particularly stupid and disingenuous attempts to justify it.
Virginia Woolf's words are very apt here: " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes."
Discussions here and elsewhere remind me of this more and more. There is a very definite whiff of "women: know your place" going on. Kingston's Lib Dem Council recently illustrated this with its advice about why cycling was good for women. It would allow them to carry out their domestic responsibilities while also looking nice. Welcome to the 1950's, Ladies, courtesy of the Liberal (sic) Democrats.
Which I just don't have.
It's a very Trumpist phrase. Trump has multiple "Flaps of Doom" every day.
They have been firmly roasted.
eg https://road.cc/news/kingston-council-sexist-equality-assessment
Their response. Apparently it was a direct quote from an academic paper, which does not excuse them totally failing to think about it.
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/your-council/statements/equalities-impact-assessment-content-error
There is some satire:
It’s true, as soon as I started cycling again as an adult I found myself yelling “alright darlin’!” at every young woman I passed. I also started smoking a pipe, falling asleep while reading a newspaper on Sundays and developed an uncontrollable urge to explain things to random strangers.
iIt is up there with newspapers nearly always publishing photos of "cyclists" in lycra wearing helmets.
Although come to think of it, a few trolley-loads of beer (or water) have been sold. Is that the World Cup or the summer?
Admittedly you can plot a path to the final for several other European or South American teams but I'm more worried about the physical conditions than opposing teams blocking England's second World Cup.
Anyway, we'll see how things develop. I doubt the group stage will change the odds much so there is imo no rush to bet.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wyezwly69o\
"Ministers want 60% of children walking or cycling to school by 2035"
It's this kind of mind blowing "might happen in 10 years or so" policies that are really keeping on cheerleading for Keir. I mean - can you imagine only 40% of children being driven to school in a roughly ten-year timeframe?! Is this not the very definition of the "Change" manifesto?
The quote is from a New Zealand academic paper about the potential benefits of e-bikes for women.
Insufficient thinking, methinks, by the officers / consultants, and Councillors not being on the ball if they checked it.
Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/miliband-underfloor-heating-in-net-zero-drive/
As for underfloor heating. I had it in a flat I used to live in on the Pershore Road. Expensive and inefficient.
I’d be interested to know if it is still fitted to new builds,
Miliband comes for underfloor heating in net zero drive
Energy Secretary to introduce curbs on towel rails and gas fires in push for energy-efficient technology
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/e8b58efc12fbe181
Very occasionally I still buy a paper at the weekends.