That doesn't mean that taking the piss out of genders in comedy is something that should be a target, though.
That might be the case if there weren't massive and entrenched power asymmetry between genders. One gender has subjugated and discriminated against the other for thousands of years so there is no equivalence between something that mocks men and something similarly pejorative about women. They are not the same.
Of course it was attention seeking, wasn't that the stated point? To draw attention to Blair's attempts to lock up potentially innocent people for 42 days?
Whatever the merits of the argument, which some would find spurious to say the least, creating a by-election in a ultra safe Tory seat that he was guaranteed to win was vain nonsense!
If he wanted to make his point, challenging at the next Labour held by-election would have been more worthy.
An absolute d*ckhead who will probably be our next Prime Minister!
Worth remembering that ultimately the 42 day detention bit was dropped from the bill and didn't become law. Davis may have made himself a joke but he won that war.
As an illiberal liberal I was quite happy with 42 days, 90 days, or even the suspension of habeas corpus. If holding some idiot indefinitely prevented something like the events at Manchester Arena, Westminster Bridge, Borough Market or Finsbury Park Mosque bring it on! What price the freedom of some terrorist suspect compared with the lives of children at a music concert?
I seldom agreed with George W. Bush, however as Obama found out, Guantanamo Bay was a bad idea on paper but had its practical uses!
The most difficult aspect of HS2 will be Euston. Losing half the capacity for a number of years will be very painful for commuters on Virgin, London Midland and London Overground services.
I know this might sound stupid, especially to your expertise in this area, but there are two train stations very close by to Euston that can handle the load.
Or are both St Pancras and King's X already at capacity?
In terms of diverting trains of the WCML there isn't much you can do. St Pancras isn't the biggest in terms of domestic platforms so that's not much help and Kings X is not much better.
Of course, that doesn't stop commuters using other lines during the disruption but that could make trains on the MML and the Chiltern route particularly crowded.
Thanks.
As someone who regularly commutes to London, I prefer going Sheffield to St Pancras than Manchester Pic to Euston.
That doesn't mean that taking the piss out of genders in comedy is something that should be a target, though.
That might be the case if there weren't massive and entrenched power asymmetry between genders. One gender has subjugated and discriminated against the other for thousands of years so there is no equivalence between something that mocks men and something similarly pejorative about women. They are not the same.
One is oppression, the other is mocking. Both are unnecessary, only one is actively harmful. In terms of pruning the growth back and having symmetry you need to cut back both sides to a point of equity. If the aim is indistinctness in treatment and view then you can't normalize inequitable treatment even through mocking. The problem is, it's far more fundamental than changing how we advertise.
Plenty of reasons to build it - but why the (expensive) 400 kph requirement ?
Most other high speed rail projects seem to be around 300 kph.
Not an expert at all (and somewhat surprised at how HS2 inspires such passion).
But if it's going to take however many decades to complete - why not go for the best available?
Presumably this is going to be our intercity train system for the next 100 years? We can borrow at very low rates.... My inclination would be do it well and make it last.
Completely off topic, but I ended up watching the final 45 minutes or so of the HS2 statement late last night (I had missed start of the day's real TV i.e. Gore of Thrones and would need to do catchup later in week).
Rather to my surprise I thought Grayling handled it all rather well.
The statement lasted more than 45 ministers? You could be almost in Birmingham by then.
HS2 is going to be the biggest white elephant in history.
I know this is going to go down the usual rabbit holes, but why?
In any other country HS2 would be welcomed, as investment in the future. French towns competed to be close to it, and the likes of Amiens have suffered from being off route.
The real benefit of HS2 is releasing capacity on other lines. I suspect much of the moaning is from people who rarely use trains.
People are being shortsighted. They think that because we don't need the capacity *right now* we shouldn't start building it now. However, if we go down the same line as we did with Crossrail and TL2K and wait until the need for more capacity is undeniable before we start to build...
Mrs C, plenty, probably a majority (of biased) advertising is about men being incompetent. This isn't necessarily surprising, given women buy 80% or so of stuff (even 'male' things like aftershave are largely bought by women, hence aftershave ads having shirtless models).
I'm not a fan of some of the lines taken (few months ago saw a children's game advertised with the line "Even dad can play [understand] it"), but I suspect this is going to end up just cutting out gender-based humour.
Humour I have no issues with and I am sure that the blokes do not like being shown as a collection of bumbling incompetents who cannot make coffee and biscuits (although there was the Gold Blend couple with Gareth Hunt in the 80s ooo-err!!!)
As an aside, it's amusing, and perhaps telling, that the infamous Beach Body Ready ad was castigated for showing a healthy and attractive woman in a bikini, but nobody gave a shit about the ripped shirtless man with an eight-pack.
Obviously discrimination based on gender is abhorrent. That doesn't mean that taking the piss out of genders in comedy is something that should be a target, though.
Edited extras bit: such as this
twitter.com/bernerlap/status/887208780869627904
I have to admit that is highly amusing. I will counterpoint it by saying that in one of the episodes, River Song turned out to be a better Tardis driver than the Doctor Girl Power
Completely off topic, but I ended up watching the final 45 minutes or so of the HS2 statement late last night (I had missed start of the day's real TV i.e. Gore of Thrones and would need to do catchup later in week).
Rather to my surprise I thought Grayling handled it all rather well.
The statement lasted more than 45 ministers? You could be almost in Birmingham by then.
HS2 is going to be the biggest white elephant in history.
I know this is going to go down the usual rabbit holes, but why?
In any other country HS2 would be welcomed, as investment in the future. French towns competed to be close to it, and the likes of Amiens have suffered from being off route.
The real benefit of HS2 is releasing capacity on other lines. I suspect much of the moaning is from people who rarely use trains.
Yes a good use of £111 billion on a country that cannot house people, I know let's have faster trains. What dummy could not upgrade the existing infrastructure and put on double decker trains like those stupid Europeans do.
How many bridges do you think might need to be rebuilt?
Actually Davis is doing a great job in handling the EU. He is refusing their invitation to put up endless position papers because he does not want to create pointless areas of public conflict. He knows that both they and he will have to climb down, so he is refusing to make too many positions public. The EU, on the other hand, brief the media every five seconds and therefore are backing themselves into a corner.
Remainers like to say that this is not a problem because the EU can dictate terms. You are about to find out that the EU has miscalculated. The UK are completely in the legal right on the Brexit Bill and the EU are wrong. Davis is going to easily be able to call their bluff by playing it cool and then, when it all breaks down, offering to refer the whole matter to an ICJ panel for arbitration after the trade deal is done. The EU will have to refuse, as any legal arbitration will almost certainly find that the EU owes the UK, not the other way around. The EU will look ridiculous as nobody is actually going to think we should pay money for which there is no legal basis unless there is a trade deal agreed at the same time.
No need for a pile of position papers. Just crafty negotiation strategy is all that is needed.
David Davis is an idiot. Not much more to say really.
I guess to some he is a useful idiot.
I am pretty sure David Davis thinks he's a crafty negotiator. He clearly doesn't think there's a need for planning and position papers. He probably thinks the EU has miscalculated.
I would say your post gets to the heart of the thinking at the Department for exiting the EU.
It and so articulate that this morning it's even more difficult than usual.
Interestingly on the Today programme this morning the talking head remainer and brexiter both said it was pretty dumb to take papers into the negotiation. It was their opinion that Barnier has to have the paper as he has so many interested and competing agendas he has to balance. Justin Webb did his best to spin it badly for Davis but they were having none of it!!
That's overinterpteting a coordinated bit of spin from the Barnier team. They have an agenda to demonstrate the UK side as being woefully underprepared. Which of course they are.
How do you know?
What's the UK position on a transition period and how long it should be?
That's overinterpteting a coordinated bit of spin from the Barnier team. They have an agenda to demonstrate the UK side as being woefully underprepared. Which of course they are.
How do you know?
Have you forgotten the "War of Summer" already? That cave-in happened at last month's negotiation.
Agreeing to the timetable is a cave in? I would regard it as letting them have their own way to begin with as it makes little difference in the long term.
Let them have their little victories, it feeds their arrogance. If we agree a multi billion euro bill, that would be a cave in.
Completely off topic, but I ended up watching the final 45 minutes or so of the HS2 statement late last night (I had missed start of the day's real TV i.e. Gore of Thrones and would need to do catchup later in week).
Rather to my surprise I thought Grayling handled it all rather well.
The statement lasted more than 45 ministers? You could be almost in Birmingham by then.
HS2 is going to be the biggest white elephant in history.
I know this is going to go down the usual rabbit holes, but why?
Who's going to buy the tickets? A subset of an already fractured market.
I'm going to London tomorrow. Already the choice is between £100 for a Branson special and £25 for a chugger through Northampton or Aylesbury. Is the extra worth it? In 2017 there's plenty I can do in the extra 45 minutes on the train. Or I can just do without the journey altogether and skype the people I want to talk to.
How much are the tickets on a £100 billion train going to cost? £200+? And who's going to buy them?
Who's going to buy them ?
People on expense accounts.
It'll be great for politicians, bankers and bureaucrats who want to go quicker and on less crowded trains between London and Manchester or Leeds.
HS2 is effectively a vast wealth transfer from the proles and prole towns to the metropolitan 1%.
There are always lots of comments like this who either (a) don't understand how HS1 is priced, or (b) think without any evidence that HS2 will be priced totally differently.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
Completely off topic, but I ended up watching the final 45 minutes or so of the HS2 statement late last night (I had missed start of the day's real TV i.e. Gore of Thrones and would need to do catchup later in week).
Rather to my surprise I thought Grayling handled it all rather well.
The statement lasted more than 45 ministers? You could be almost in Birmingham by then.
HS2 is going to be the biggest white elephant in history.
hmm.
I struggle with statements like that. I think it's because they can't be tested. At what point is it decided if its a white elephant or not?
When the passenger numbers for the first month of operation are published? or the fifth year? In the middle of a boom/recession?
I see HS2 like the severn bridge, or the channel tunnel, or the national grid or whatever. It's infrastructure. It's what makes the country function. We can't not build it.
Or, well, we can.
But it means in a hundred years we'll end up as a crap, poor country while the rest of the world has advanced.
What kind of legacy is that to leave to your grandchildren's grandchildren?
If we don't build it we'll just have to start building it in 20-30 years when we already need it.
Actually Davis is doing a great job in handling the EU. He is refusing their invitation to put up endless position papers because he does not want to create pointless areas of public conflict. He knows that both they and he will have to climb down, so he is refusing to make too many positions public. The EU, on the other hand, brief the media every five seconds and therefore are backing themselves into a corner.
Remainers like to say that this is not a problem because the EU can dictate terms. You are about to find out that the EU has miscalculated. The UK are completely in the legal right on the Brexit Bill and the EU are wrong. Davis is going to easily be able to call their bluff by playing it cool and then, when it all breaks down, offering to refer the whole matter to an ICJ panel for arbitration after the trade deal is done. The EU will have to refuse, as any legal arbitration will almost certainly find that the EU owes the UK, not the other way around. The EU will look ridiculous as nobody is actually going to think we should pay money for which there is no legal basis unless there is a trade deal agreed at the same time.
No need for a pile of position papers. Just crafty negotiation strategy is all that is needed.
David Davis is an idiot. Not much more to say really.
I guess to some he is a useful idiot.
I am pretty sure David Davis thinks he's a crafty negotiator. He clearly doesn't think there's a need for planning and position papers. He probably thinks the EU has miscalculated.
I would say your post gets to the heart of the thinking at the Department for exiting the EU.
It and so articulate that this morning it's even more difficult than usual.
Interestingly on the Today programme this morning the talking head remainer and brexiter both said it was pretty dumb to take papers into the negotiation. It was their opinion that Barnier has to have the paper as he has so many interested and competing agendas he has to balance. Justin Webb did his best to spin it badly for Davis but they were having none of it!!
That's overinterpteting a coordinated bit of spin from the Barnier team. They have an agenda to demonstrate the UK side as being woefully underprepared. Which of course they are.
How do you know?
What's the UK position on a transition period and how long it should be?
To be decided I presume, like a lot of things.
What's the EU position on a transition period and how long it should be?
Completely off topic, but I ended up watching the final 45 minutes or so of the HS2 statement late last night (I had missed start of the day's real TV i.e. Gore of Thrones and would need to do catchup later in week).
Rather to my surprise I thought Grayling handled it all rather well.
The statement lasted more than 45 ministers? You could be almost in Birmingham by then.
HS2 is going to be the biggest white elephant in history.
hmm.
I struggle with statements like that. I think it's because they can't be tested. At what point is it decided if its a white elephant or not?
When the passenger numbers for the first month of operation are published? or the fifth year? In the middle of a boom/recession?
I see HS2 like the severn bridge, or the channel tunnel, or the national grid or whatever. It's infrastructure. It's what makes the country function. We can't not build it.
Or, well, we can.
But it means in a hundred years we'll end up as a crap, poor country while the rest of the world has advanced.
What kind of legacy is that to leave to your grandchildren's grandchildren?
To me - a white elephant has to be relatively unused.
HS2 may be a dreadful idea that goes crazily over budget.
But it doesn't seem likely that it won't be be used?
The millennium dome for instance... Although I gather the 02 arena is doing well?
The Millennium Dome (the structure) was and remains a great success. It was the New Millennium Experience (the exhibition) which was a total failure - because the people in charge couldn't decide if it should be entertaining or educational, and so it ended up being neither.
I disagree. In comedy, all's fair. In real life, discrimination based on gender is wrong.
If "all's fair" in comedy does that mean humour based on race or disability (for example) is fine?
It's rather amusing how Morris_Dancer is so used to his life of white male privilege that he remains completely blind to the existence of said privilege.
On the topic of sexist adverts, the news channels are running clips of very old adverts that would look ridiculous today. I'd like to see some more recent examples of adverts which would have been banned. Otherwise this just looks like grandstanding to me.
Did we do this for Churchill? Wellington? Nelson? Pitt? Gibbon?
Mr. Woolie (2), whilst the men-being-rubbish stereotype is tedious, I do think making it illegal is a ridiculous overreaction.
Tbf it's at her home, not a national moment of silence. Silly though. As for gender stereotyping, indeed. Tackling advertising when there are still clear injustices in the way we are as humans to each other is fiddling whilst my bum burns.
That's overinterpteting a coordinated bit of spin from the Barnier team. They have an agenda to demonstrate the UK side as being woefully underprepared. Which of course they are.
How do you know?
Have you forgotten the "War of Summer" already? That cave-in happened at last month's negotiation.
Agreeing to the timetable is a cave in? I would regard it as letting them have their own way to begin with as it makes little difference in the long term.
Let them have their little victories, it feeds their arrogance. If we agree a multi billion euro bill, that would be a cave in.
And it was only their second timetable that we agreed to, not their first. The final one was nearer to our initial position than theirs, which makes the perception that this is an EU win/UK cave-in perplexing.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
Actually Davis is doing a great job in handling the EU. He is refusing their invitation to put up endless position papers because he does not want to create pointless areas of public conflict. He knows that both they and he will have to climb down, so he is refusing to make too many positions public. The EU, on the other hand, brief the media every five seconds and therefore are backing themselves into a corner.
Remainers like to say that this is not a problem because the EU can dictate terms. You are about to find out that the EU has miscalculated. The UK are completely in the legal right on the Brexit Bill and the EU are wrong. Davis is going to easily be able to call their bluff by playing it cool and then, when it all breaks down, offering to refer the whole matter to an ICJ panel for arbitration after the trade deal is done. The EU will have to refuse, as any legal arbitration will almost certainly find that the EU owes the UK, not the other way around. The EU will look ridiculous as nobody is actually going to think we should pay money for which there is no legal basis unless there is a trade deal agreed at the same time.
No need for a pile of position papers. Just crafty negotiation strategy is all that is needed.
David Davis is an idiot. Not much more to say really.
I guess to some he is a useful idiot.
I am pretty sure David Davis thinks he's a crafty negotiator. He clearly doesn't think there's a need for planning and position papers. He probably thinks the EU has miscalculated.
I would say your post gets to the heart of the thinking at the Department for exiting the EU.
It and so articulate that this morning it's even more difficult than usual.
Interestingly of it!!
That's overinterpteting a coordinated bit of spin from the Barnier team. They have an agenda to demonstrate the UK side as being woefully underprepared. Which of course they are.
How do you know?
What's the UK position on a transition period and how long it should be?
To be decided I presume, like a lot of things.
What's the EU position on a transition period and how long it should be?
We have to ask for one. As Davis, Hammond and Fox have made very clear the government has yet to agree on what it should cover and how long it should last. That's how prepared they are. I guess it's more fun leaking and stabbing each other in the back.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
How is that comedy?
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
Are you seriously telling me you've been to a comedy club where the comedian was a black footballer and the audience paid to pelt him with bananas?
Do you really believe it's going to be £100 billion? Really?
We're at 55.7 billion now, so ... yes, probably.
How do you work that out?
£100 bn is a suspiciously round number - but OTOH, you don't seriously think HS2 will be delivered on budget ?
The PAC has already labelled the delivery timescale 'overly ambitious', and as far as Leeds / Manchester are concerned, it's going to be at least 17 years, and probably a couple of decades before the line is open.
Why does these projects take so long in Britain ? In China, 5 years max. Even countries in Europe, it would be much shorter.
The WCML stuff seemed to go on forever, well it seemed that way from Coventry.
Takes 59 mins to go from Cov to London Euston currently. Not bad, to be honest (94 miles of track).
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
How is that comedy?
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
The people throwing the bananas probably think it's funny and just a joke? Maybe it's not the best example though.
I think looking back DD was just looking for a way to get out of Cameron's shadow cabinet before the Posh Boys demoted or sacked him.
This was when PODWAS was still a recent thing. I think DD thought he could whip up an anti establishment movement behind him, topple Dave and win in 2010. Instead everyone said whaaaaaaaaaaa?
Do you really believe it's going to be £100 billion? Really?
We're at 55.7 billion now, so ... yes, probably.
"First rule of government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only this one can be kept secret!" - John Hurt in "Contact" (1997)
Completely off topic, but I ended up watching the final 45 minutes or so of the HS2 statement late last night (I had missed start of the day's real TV i.e. Gore of Thrones and would need to do catchup later in week).
Rather to my surprise I thought Grayling handled it all rather well.
The statement lasted more than 45 ministers? You could be almost in Birmingham by then.
HS2 is going to be the biggest white elephant in history.
I know this is going to go down the usual rabbit holes, but why?
In any other country HS2 would be welcomed, as investment in the future. French towns competed to be close to it, and the likes of Amiens have suffered from being off route.
The real benefit of HS2 is releasing capacity on other lines. I suspect much of the moaning is from people who rarely use trains.
Yes a good use of £111 billion on a country that cannot house people, I know let's have faster trains. What dummy could not upgrade the existing infrastructure and put on double decker trains like those stupid Europeans do.
The dummy that in the nineteenth century built our infrastructure to a more restricted loading gauge, Malcolm.
We are not in the nineteenth century now though. Must be a few grown up engineers who could work it out. Most likely we would need to import engineers, workers and the trains as our graduates are only capable of serving coffee or flipping burgers nowadays.
Do you really believe it's going to be £100 billion? Really?
We're at 55.7 billion now, so ... yes, probably.
How do you work that out?
£100 bn is a suspiciously round number - but OTOH, you don't seriously think HS2 will be delivered on budget ?
The PAC has already labelled the delivery timescale 'overly ambitious', and as far as Leeds / Manchester are concerned, it's going to be at least 17 years, and probably a couple of decades before the line is open.
Why does these projects take so long in Britain ? In China, 5 years max. Even countries in Europe, it would be much shorter.
Small crowded island with strong property rights. China is rather the antithesis of that, which is one reason their costs for HS rail are around a tenth of ours.
I still don't understand the max speed requirement, though. It's not energy efficient, and is far more noisy (aerodynamics), requires a lot more work on whatever is to support the rails, and the actual travel times given the relatively short distances involved don't show that much of an advantage over 300kph.
I think looking back DD was just looking for a way to get out of Cameron's shadow cabinet before the Posh Boys demoted or sacked him.
This was when PODWAS was still a recent thing. I think DD thought he could whip up an anti establishment movement behind him, topple Dave and win in 2010. Instead everyone said whaaaaaaaaaaa?
Do you really believe it's going to be £100 billion? Really?
We're at 55.7 billion now, so ... yes, probably.
How do you work that out?
£100 bn is a suspiciously round number - but OTOH, you don't seriously think HS2 will be delivered on budget ?
The PAC has already labelled the delivery timescale 'overly ambitious', and as far as Leeds / Manchester are concerned, it's going to be at least 17 years, and probably a couple of decades before the line is open.
Why does these projects take so long in Britain ? In China, 5 years max. Even countries in Europe, it would be much shorter.
The WCML stuff seemed to go on forever, well it seemed that way from Coventry.
Takes 59 mins to go from Cov to London Euston currently. Not bad, to be honest (94 miles of track).
It'll be fair bit more than 59 minutes once HS2 is open.
Very good header Mike. I was gushing with support when Davis first did his by-election stunt, but I now appreciate I was an idiot and a dupe. The whole thing was a risible farce that achieved absolutely bugger all. Davis then skulked off to be the Tories' answer to Jeremy Corbyn - voting against his leadership at every opportunity - and was occasionally seen making boorish homophobic remarks in London bars or smirking with Michael Crick around canteen service hatches. What a complete and utter dud!
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
Are you seriously telling me you've been to a comedy club where the comedian was a black footballer and the audience paid to pelt him with bananas?
That's absolutely unbelievable.
Have they got tickets available for this Friday?
Not sure what you're getting at? My point is - if you think all is fair in the name of comedy - then you have to defend all comedy. And you may find that harder when it's directed at you or your family.
Very good header Mike. I was gushing with support when Davis first did his by-election stunt, but I now appreciate I was an idiot and a dupe. The whole thing was a risible farce that achieved absolutely bugger all. Davis then skulked off to be the Tories' answer to Jeremy Corbyn - voting against his leadership at every opportunity - and was occasionally seen making boorish homophobic remarks in London bars or smirking with Michael Crick around canteen service hatches. What a complete and utter dud!
He's proving good as Brexit Secretary though, IMO...
Completely off topic, but I ended up watching the final 45 minutes or so of the HS2 statement late last night (I had missed start of the day's real TV i.e. Gore of Thrones and would need to do catchup later in week).
Rather to my surprise I thought Grayling handled it all rather well.
The statement lasted more than 45 ministers? You could be almost in Birmingham by then.
HS2 is going to be the biggest white elephant in history.
I know this is going to go down the usual rabbit holes, but why?
Who's going to buy the tickets? A subset of an already fractured market.
I'm going to London tomorrow. Already the choice is between £100 for a Branson special and £25 for a chugger through Northampton or Aylesbury. Is the extra worth it? In 2017 there's plenty I can do in the extra 45 minutes on the train. Or I can just do without the journey altogether and skype the people I want to talk to.
How much are the tickets on a £100 billion train going to cost? £200+? And who's going to buy them?
Who's going to buy them ?
People on expense accounts.
It'll be great for politicians, bankers and bureaucrats who want to go quicker and on less crowded trains between London and Manchester or Leeds.
HS2 is effectively a vast wealth transfer from the proles and prole towns to the metropolitan 1%.
There are always lots of comments like this who either (a) don't understand how HS1 is priced, or (b) think without any evidence that HS2 will be priced totally differently.
HS1 is priced differently:
London St Pancras to Ashford International return (off peak) = £31.30 London Charing Cross to Ashford International return (off peak) = £26.10
A while ago I saw (on TV) Reginald D. Hunter, Live at the Apollo. Generally, I liked his routine but thought the Fritzl stuff (Friztl[sp] was the Austrian who kept his daughter in a secret cellar for decades during which he sexually abused her) too far.
Mrs C, of course, with a blonde lady doctor and a lesbian companion, some might say that it's men who are going to really enjoy the series
Mr. Ace, there were some adverts on Channel 4 featuring disabled people, include one young lady whose hand spasmed. But her boyfriend enjoyed it. I don't see any need to ban that.
Mr. Enjineeya, where was white male privilege when the Rotherham rapes were happening? A third of those victims were male, practically all were white.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
How is that comedy?
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
The people throwing the bananas probably think it's funny and just a joke? Maybe it's not the best example though.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
How long before we hear that the "surprise" fall in inflation is actually bad news because it shows the economy overall is slowing down?
That's the big problem with 24 hour news. The need to make every data point a story.
Yep. See also the way the release of GDP figures have been turned into a national "event"
They will toy with colourful language too. Ministers were taken aback by June's collapse in inflation. Opposition warns inflation is in freefall. Public sector pay rises seem further away than ever after the catastrophic fall in Inflation. Economy is out of control as inflation dramatically reverses course against all expectations. Inflation collapses as wages and the economy decouple.
Technology has moved on quite a bit since then ...
Precisely my point.
But the issue of building a new track versus upgrading an old track already in-use is completely different to SpaceX vs the Shuttle.
Not sure what point you're trying to make regarding the original discussion but SpaceX didn't get to where they are by keeping the Shuttle and making upgrades to it, while the Shuttle was still in active service. They built a new design fit for purpose, which is what HS2 are doing.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
How is that comedy?
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
The people throwing the bananas probably think it's funny and just a joke? Maybe it's not the best example though.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
I agree that it absolutely makes a difference whether you are a willing participant or not.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
A while ago I saw (on TV) Reginald D. Hunter, Live at the Apollo. Generally, I liked his routine but thought the Fritzl stuff (Friztl[sp] was the Austrian who kept his daughter in a secret cellar for decades during which he sexually abused her) too far.
Mrs C, of course, with a blonde lady doctor and a lesbian companion, some might say that it's men who are going to really enjoy the series
Mr. Ace, there were some adverts on Channel 4 featuring disabled people, include one young lady whose hand spasmed. But her boyfriend enjoyed it. I don't see any need to ban that.
Mr. Enjineeya, where was white male privilege when the Rotherham rapes were happening? A third of those victims were male, practically all were white.
You won't enjoy reading the report from Bright Blue, which is linked to on the Conservative Home website. Among other things, they want all police forces to emulate Nottinghamshire Constabulary in treating wolf-whistling as a "hate crime." Comments are uniformly hostile.
Very good header Mike. I was gushing with support when Davis first did his by-election stunt, but I now appreciate I was an idiot and a dupe. The whole thing was a risible farce that achieved absolutely bugger all. Davis then skulked off to be the Tories' answer to Jeremy Corbyn - voting against his leadership at every opportunity - and was occasionally seen making boorish homophobic remarks in London bars or smirking with Michael Crick around canteen service hatches. What a complete and utter dud!
He's proving good as Brexit Secretary though, IMO...
I must have missed his laundry list of achievements. But Brexit supporters need him to get the Tory leadership. If he doesn't he'll get in another massive huff, resign spectacularly and attempt to bring down Brexit with him. I can see how this is shaping up.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
How is that comedy?
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
The people throwing the bananas probably think it's funny and just a joke? Maybe it's not the best example though.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
I agree that it absolutely makes a difference whether you are a willing participant or not.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
All is fair in comedy. Abuse is not comedy it is abuse.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
How is that comedy?
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
The people throwing the bananas probably think it's funny and just a joke? Maybe it's not the best example though.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
I agree that it absolutely makes a difference whether you are a willing participant or not.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
I think that it's largely self-policing. If a comedian oversteps what his audience considers to be the bounds of decency, then he'll get a bad reaction.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
How is that comedy?
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
The people throwing the bananas probably think it's funny and just a joke? Maybe it's not the best example though.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
I agree that it absolutely makes a difference whether you are a willing participant or not.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
All is fair in comedy. Abuse is not comedy it is abuse.
So if i tell a racist joke about someone at work it's not comedy? Comedy has to be consensual? I'm not sure the line between comedy and abuse is as easily drawn as you think...
Or to look at it another way... When I walked into a telegraph pole in front of a bunch of friends - they gave me a lot of abuse, but it was funny and it was comedy too...
Completely off topic, but I ended up watching the final 45 minutes or so of the HS2 statement late last night (I had missed start of the day's real TV i.e. Gore of Thrones and would need to do catchup later in week).
Rather to my surprise I thought Grayling handled it all rather well.
The statement lasted more than 45 ministers? You could be almost in Birmingham by then.
HS2 is going to be the biggest white elephant in history.
I know this is going to go down the usual rabbit holes, but why?
Who's going to buy the tickets? A subset of an already fractured market.
I'm going to London tomorrow. Already the choice is between £100 for a Branson special and £25 for a chugger through Northampton or Aylesbury. Is the extra worth it? In 2017 there's plenty I can do in the extra 45 minutes on the train. Or I can just do without the journey altogether and skype the people I want to talk to.
How much are the tickets on a £100 billion train going to cost? £200+? And who's going to buy them?
Who's going to buy them ?
People on expense accounts.
It'll be great for politicians, bankers and bureaucrats who want to go quicker and on less crowded trains between London and Manchester or Leeds.
HS2 is effectively a vast wealth transfer from the proles and prole towns to the metropolitan 1%.
There are always lots of comments like this who either (a) don't understand how HS1 is priced, or (b) think without any evidence that HS2 will be priced totally differently.
HS1 is priced differently:
London St Pancras to Ashford International return (off peak) = £31.30 London Charing Cross to Ashford International return (off peak) = £26.10
Exactly. A small premium. Not double the price as Dadge suggested.
Actually if you want a more recent example of the stunning lack of judgement by David Davis you only have to look at his appointment of Stewart Jackson as his Chief of Staff.
Very good header Mike. I was gushing with support when Davis first did his by-election stunt, but I now appreciate I was an idiot and a dupe. The whole thing was a risible farce that achieved absolutely bugger all. Davis then skulked off to be the Tories' answer to Jeremy Corbyn - voting against his leadership at every opportunity - and was occasionally seen making boorish homophobic remarks in London bars or smirking with Michael Crick around canteen service hatches. What a complete and utter dud!
He's proving good as Brexit Secretary though, IMO...
I must have missed his laundry list of achievements. But Brexit supporters need him to get the Tory leadership. If he doesn't he'll get in another massive huff, resign spectacularly and attempt to bring down Brexit with him. I can see how this is shaping up.
He won't "storm out".
He'll still be there in March 2019 when the UK leaves the European Union.
Actually Davis is doing a great job in handling the EU. He is refusing their invitation to put up endless position papers because he does not want to create pointless areas of public conflict. He knows that both they and he will have to climb down, so he is refusing to make too many positions public. The EU, on the other hand, brief the media every five seconds and therefore are backing themselves into a corner.
Remainers like to say that this is not a problem because the EU can dictate terms. You are about to find out that the EU has miscalculated. The UK are completely in the legal right on the Brexit Bill and the EU are wrong. Davis is going to easily be able to call their bluff by playing it cool and then, when it all breaks down, offering to refer the whole matter to an ICJ panel for arbitration after the trade deal is done. The EU will have to refuse, as any legal arbitration will almost certainly find that the EU owes the UK, not the other way around. The EU will look ridiculous as nobody is actually going to think we should pay money for which there is no legal basis unless there is a trade deal agreed at the same time.
No need for a pile of position papers. Just crafty negotiation strategy is all that is needed.
David Davis is an idiot. Not much more to say really.
I guess to some he is a useful idiot.
I am pretty sure David Davis thinks he's a crafty negotiator. He clearly doesn't think there's a need for planning and position papers. He probably thinks the EU has miscalculated.
I would say your post gets to the heart of the thinking at the Department for exiting the EU.
It probably does. I can't get past thinking Leavers are so stupid and or xenophobic and or pitiful old farts that every time I read one of their posts it's impossible to take seriously what they've written. Last night I had dinner with some Remoaning academics and they were so virulent in their loathing and so articulate that this morning it's even more difficult than usual.
All is fair in comedy. Abuse is not comedy it is abuse.
So if i tell a racist joke about someone at work it's not comedy? Comedy has to be consensual? I'm not sure the line between comedy and abuse is as easily drawn as you think...
Or to look at it another way... When I walked into a telegraph pole in front of a bunch of friends - they gave me a lot of abuse, but it was funny and it was comedy too...
The whole time people have been talking about comedy here they have been talking about comedians with an audience. Yes that means it is consensual. If it isn't consensual then it isn't comedy. Being racist about an unwilling colleague isn't comedy it is racism.
An accident may be funny but that doesn't make it comedy either.
Mr. rkrkrk, I partly agree. Some situations are clearly comedy (and if you don't like it then it's your job not to be there), such as comedy clubs, comedy shows on TV and comedy books.
If you're joking informally with friends that can be a grey area where a little common sense goes a long way.
Very good header Mike. I was gushing with support when Davis first did his by-election stunt, but I now appreciate I was an idiot and a dupe. The whole thing was a risible farce that achieved absolutely bugger all. Davis then skulked off to be the Tories' answer to Jeremy Corbyn - voting against his leadership at every opportunity - and was occasionally seen making boorish homophobic remarks in London bars or smirking with Michael Crick around canteen service hatches. What a complete and utter dud!
He's proving good as Brexit Secretary though, IMO...
I must have missed his laundry list of achievements. But Brexit supporters need him to get the Tory leadership. If he doesn't he'll get in another massive huff, resign spectacularly and attempt to bring down Brexit with him. I can see how this is shaping up.
He won't "storm out".
He'll still be there in March 2019 when the UK leaves the European Union.
Yes - and still on the first round of negotiations given the current rate of progress
Mr. rkrkrk, I partly agree. Some situations are clearly comedy (and if you don't like it then it's your job not to be there), such as comedy clubs, comedy shows on TV and comedy books.
If you're joking informally with friends that can be a grey area where a little common sense goes a long way.
Yes, but the problem with that is that common sense isn't.
Actually Davis is doing a great job in handling the EU. He is refusing their invitation to put up endless position papers because he does not want to create pointless areas of public conflict. He knows that both they and he will have to climb down, so he is refusing to make too many positions public. The EU, on the other hand, brief the media every five seconds and therefore are backing themselves into a corner.
Remainers like to say that this is not a problem because the EU can dictate terms. You are about to find out that the EU has miscalculated. The UK are completely in the legal right on the Brexit Bill and the EU are wrong. Davis is going to easily be able to call their bluff by playing it cool and then, when it all breaks down, offering to refer the whole matter to an ICJ panel for arbitration after the trade deal is done. The EU will have to refuse, as any legal arbitration will almost certainly find that the EU owes the UK, not the other way around. The EU will look ridiculous as nobody is actually going to think we should pay money for which there is no legal basis unless there is a trade deal agreed at the same time.
No need for a pile of position papers. Just crafty negotiation strategy is all that is needed.
David Davis is an idiot. Not much more to say really.
I guess to some he is a useful idiot.
I am pretty sure David Davis thinks he's a crafty negotiator. He clearly doesn't think there's a need for planning and position papers. He probably thinks the EU has miscalculated.
I would say your post gets to the heart of the thinking at the Department for exiting the EU.
It probably does. I can't get past thinking Leavers are so stupid and or xenophobic and or pitiful old farts that every time I read one of their posts it's impossible to take seriously what they've written. Last night I had dinner with some Remoaning academics and they were so virulent in their loathing and so articulate that this morning it's even more difficult than usual.
What's astonishing is that a quick look at this chap's bloke shows he is a classical music buff. When did classic music start attracting hate-filled abuse merchants?
We know Andrea Leadsom wants to be leader: one clue was that she stood in the leadership election. The only new thing is that Leadsom talks of the Wizard of Oz being a book rather than a film -- handy to know if you find yourself in a game of charades with her at conference this autumn.
What's astonishing is that a quick look at this chap's bloke shows he is a classical music buff. When did classic music start attracting hate-filled abuse merchants?
This is presumably the free speech that we do not have under the EU?
What's astonishing is that a quick look at this chap's bloke shows he is a classical music buff. When did classic music start attracting hate-filled abuse merchants?
What's astonishing is that a quick look at this chap's bloke shows he is a classical music buff. When did classic music start attracting hate-filled abuse merchants?
Comments
I seldom agreed with George W. Bush, however as Obama found out, Guantanamo Bay was a bad idea on paper but had its practical uses!
As someone who regularly commutes to London, I prefer going Sheffield to St Pancras than Manchester Pic to Euston.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/883708980492734466
In terms of pruning the growth back and having symmetry you need to cut back both sides to a point of equity.
If the aim is indistinctness in treatment and view then you can't normalize inequitable treatment even through mocking.
The problem is, it's far more fundamental than changing how we advertise.
But if it's going to take however many decades to complete - why not go for the best available?
Presumably this is going to be our intercity train system for the next 100 years? We can borrow at very low rates.... My inclination would be do it well and make it last.
I disagree. In comedy, all's fair. In real life, discrimination based on gender is wrong.
Indeed. I have to admit that is highly amusing. I will counterpoint it by saying that in one of the episodes, River Song turned out to be a better Tardis driver than the Doctor
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
Let them have their little victories, it feeds their arrogance. If we agree a multi billion euro bill, that would be a cave in.
Anyway, work beckons.....
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40642254
What's the EU position on a transition period and how long it should be?
When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
I think looking back DD was just looking for a way to get out of Cameron's shadow cabinet before the Posh Boys demoted or sacked him.
That's absolutely unbelievable.
Have they got tickets available for this Friday?
Maybe it's not the best example though.
Maybe something like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7898845.stm
- John Hurt in "Contact" (1997)
China is rather the antithesis of that, which is one reason their costs for HS rail are around a tenth of ours.
I still don't understand the max speed requirement, though.
It's not energy efficient, and is far more noisy (aerodynamics), requires a lot more work on whatever is to support the rails, and the actual travel times given the relatively short distances involved don't show that much of an advantage over 300kph.
My point is - if you think all is fair in the name of comedy - then you have to defend all comedy.
And you may find that harder when it's directed at you or your family.
This guy pokes fun at me and he's funny.
https://www.accidentaltalmudist.org/laughter
London St Pancras to Ashford International return (off peak) = £31.30
London Charing Cross to Ashford International return (off peak) = £26.10
A while ago I saw (on TV) Reginald D. Hunter, Live at the Apollo. Generally, I liked his routine but thought the Fritzl stuff (Friztl[sp] was the Austrian who kept his daughter in a secret cellar for decades during which he sexually abused her) too far.
Mrs C, of course, with a blonde lady doctor and a lesbian companion, some might say that it's men who are going to really enjoy the series
Mr. Ace, there were some adverts on Channel 4 featuring disabled people, include one young lady whose hand spasmed. But her boyfriend enjoyed it. I don't see any need to ban that.
Mr. Enjineeya, where was white male privilege when the Rotherham rapes were happening? A third of those victims were male, practically all were white.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
You tempted to declare independence from the UK like this fella?
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/887048562755981313
Not sure what point you're trying to make regarding the original discussion but SpaceX didn't get to where they are by keeping the Shuttle and making upgrades to it, while the Shuttle was still in active service. They built a new design fit for purpose, which is what HS2 are doing.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
Don't you think Scotland will swing strongly to Jezza?
IMO real wages continue to fall is the most newsworthy element.
Comedy has to be consensual? I'm not sure the line between comedy and abuse is as easily drawn as you think...
Or to look at it another way... When I walked into a telegraph pole in front of a bunch of friends - they gave me a lot of abuse, but it was funny and it was comedy too...
He'll still be there in March 2019 when the UK leaves the European Union.
An accident may be funny but that doesn't make it comedy either.
Comedy is professional.
If you're joking informally with friends that can be a grey area where a little common sense goes a long way.
https://twitter.com/speccoffeehouse/status/887260357156368385
Was the bit where she stood for the leadership not a bigger clue?
Hmmmm.....
Leadsom for Leader! Vote for Leadsom!!
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/887232410454286337
What's astonishing is that a quick look at this chap's bloke shows he is a classical music buff. When did classic music start attracting hate-filled abuse merchants?
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/887263640222564353