Gary Lineker (moved)

[Peckris 2 2,043]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:29 PM, DrLarry said:

I doubt there will be a consensus about the value for money that the license fee covers BBC TV , radio, and historically  channel 4 (although a different model commercially) all make valuable contributions to my life at so many levels £12 a month seems a small amount to pay, I rarely give it a second thought.  But I can see if you are a person who never watches anything on these TV stations or listens to any of the national or regional BBC radios it isn't good value for money.  I would rather the issue of impartiality was not the main focus as I have said I would rather a person give analysis but that is not what people want.  I cannot see that it is favour of government investigating many of the issues in a very independent way, although I accept there are some serious issues from the past for which it must accept culpability but there are many institutions that have to face much of their cultural norms.  

I suppose we all reflect our particular lifestyle in the choices we want to make using our money 

:Once again, I have to point out that although the BBC gets most or all of the licence fee, it is not something that enshrines the BBC - IT'S A GOVERNMENT TAX THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY in order to watch ANY TV, whether it be BBC, ITV, cable, satellite, or whatever. Do you REALLY think that if the BBC went out of existence (as Daily Mail readers secretly wish) the government would stop making us pay a licence fee? Please folks, come back down to earth and get real.

[1949threepence 3,366]

8 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Weren't we told the vaxes were "safe and effective". Wrong on both counts. as soon as Omicron appeared they were of little and rapidly diminishing effectiveness.

And I'd love someone to tell me what a "climate change denialist" is and why are they "mad"? It's a flip phrase but I think it means that you question any, and not necessarily all, of the following three points:

(1)  Is climate change/warming happening? I'll answer that - probably from measurements, but at a much slower rate than all the forecasts from all those experts over the last few decades. And why are we not told of any beneficial effects if it is, like increasing vegetation in colder climes? 

(2) Is it directly due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 0.031% of the atmosphere to 0.038%? Man produces 3% of CO2 produced annually - the other 97% is produced naturally. And is there any proof for this correlation of increased CO2 to global warming? 

(3) Is the solution of changing from a reliable, controllable, storable and concentrated energy supply to a weather-dependent, intermittent, uncontrollable and non-storable energy supply the correct one? Especially as the energy use and size of an economy are pretty strongly related? And at present wind and solar contribute from less that 1% to circa 10% of our total energy consumption (ie between <5 and 50% of our electricity consumption). So when the wind doesn't blow in Winter we'll need nuclear provision for all our transport, all our central heating and hot water, all our manufacturing industry and construction industries (which we won't have by then due to too little reliable energy) etc etc. How many nuclear power stations will we need for that, small modular ones or otherwise. And how's that construction plan going at the moment?

And after 15-20 years most of these wind and solar devices will need replacing, but we can't recycle them very easily because guess what - that'll require a humungus amount of energy!!

So the people who worry about this last point are the mad ones?

if you believe in all of the above, shouldn't you be losing sleep over China? - it burnt 300 million extra tons of coal (the biggest CO2 emitter of any fossil fuel to amount of energy produced) last year to bring it's annual consumption to over 3 billion tons of coal. But no one seems to blink an eyelid about that. 

 

It's the elephant in the room which eco warriors bend over backwards to either not talk about, or make excuses for.

Global warming is precisely that: "global". So unless the major players, such as China, also join in with the net zero effort, the whole net zero movement will be utterly futile. That doesn't look like happening anytime soon.  

I've said before that as a long term aspiration, net zero is great - and those from all sides of the climate change debate can surely agree we would all benefit from the cleaner air. But this should be evolution, not revolution. Work towards it, but stop setting unattainable targets, of which 2030 is manifestly one, and shooting ourselves in the foot, whilst making the attempt. 

When XR start demonstrating outside the Chinese embassy (and others) I might accept they mean it, and are not just a band of shouty, inarticulate, metropolitan middle class leftie luvvies whose true motive is that they can't stand the UK. 

 

[DrLarry 441]

To be honest whilst I do not agree with the tactics of XR I have seen many times individuals and groups who are willing to protest to achieve many things throughout my life as I am sure you have too.  It does take a lot of courage to stand strong on what you believe in,  sometimes even a willingness to do harm to self in order to make the apathetic amongst us to take notice.  I have done it myself for three main causes in my life Anti apartheid; equality on LGB issues and in forcing governments and pharmo companies to make access to treatment on HIV.  If a person is wholeheartedly dedicated to the belief they hold then I can at least understand that it takes such people to highlight something so that we can reach a better place.  Your definition is so "all inclusive" that  it limits your argument.  Some on the right of left, some who are presumably unluvvies ..( although I am not sure exactly what this label really means)  I am sure some work quietly in the background , some are quite articulate and many I am sure should come from all  of the constructs of "english" classes.  There is also a much bigger picture than little Britain.  I dont feel myself a great passion for a place I was born, it is just luck  and patriotism seems a somewhat small minded approach towards being human.  But if a person likes to feel that sense of belonging and "greatness" then there is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is akin to believing in the superstition  and /or religion  ...it is self reassurance or possibly a delusion of grandeur  ( but this is my take on the idea of "the patriot" ) 

[Menger 79]

5 hours ago, DrLarry said:

I dont feel myself a great passion for a place I was born, it is just luck  and patriotism seems a somewhat small minded approach towards being human.  But if a person likes to feel that sense of belonging and "greatness" then there is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is akin to believing in the superstition  and /or religion  ...it is self reassurance or possibly a delusion of grandeur  ( but this is my take on the idea of "the patriot" ) 

Indeed. Patriotism is a belief in something bigger, it provides individual meaning and group solidarity.  As such it has much in common with religion and ideology.

 Humans need something to cohere and to avoid nihilism (or to avoid being engulfed by manias - as we have recently witnessed).  An inclusive patriotism such as Britishness (I.e., not based on race, religion or ideology) seems to me potentially more inclusive and durable than alternatives such identity politics, “social justice”, climate activism or scientistism. It has certainly proven its worth  over the centuries and to this day.

I have lived in Cuba, France, Japan and the UK and in all of these I feel a sense of nation is critical to the vibrancy of the culture and people’s well-being. 

As George Orwell noted in the Lion and the Unicorn - the left has tended to scoff at patriotism as inferior to ideology.  I think Orwell was perspicacious in recognizing that his freedom to freely hold an ideology at the time depended on British patriotism.  (Or a sense of “Englishness” as he called it in his essay). 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Menger

[DrLarry 441]

10 hours ago, Menger said:

Indeed. Patriotism is a belief in something bigger, it provides individual meaning and group solidarity.  As such it has much in common with religion and ideology.

 Humans need something to cohere and to avoid nihilism (or to avoid being engulfed by manias - as we have recently witnessed).  An inclusive patriotism such as Britishness (I.e., not based on race, religion or ideology) seems to me potentially more inclusive and durable than alternatives such identity politics, “social justice”, climate activism or scientistism. It has certainly proven its worth  over the centuries and to this day.

I have lived in Cuba, France, Japan and the UK and in all of these I feel a sense of nation is critical to the vibrancy of the culture and people’s well-being. 

As George Orwell noted in the Lion and the Unicorn - the left has tended to scoff at patriotism as inferior to ideology.  I think Orwell was perspicacious in recognizing that his freedom to freely hold an ideology at the time depended on British patriotism.  (Or a sense of “Englishness” as he called it in his essay). 

I agree it is a useful "mechanism" to cohere and I am sure it offers a great sense of comfort for many people for as long as it remains a nice comfort , however is=t does get weaponized so often in history that I personally feel it somewhat disagreeable in particular when it is used by politicians to stoke reactions that lead to humane approaches  being side lined.  I have never really felt its comforting support personally no more than any other group identity.  When something feels as if it is being used or abusing others then I will happily become an activist again .  Activism does not leave me personally with a sense of belonging any more than the other groups.  Science I suppose provides a good framework simply because it is built of experience and observation yet is founded on the principle of seeking to nullify observations until such a time we reach the limits of what we can disprove.....which at that time then opens a possible explanation for some situation....science is never about fact and I quite like that sense of chaos.  But of course all positions provide an potential for isolation from one part of society or another.  

I respect the choices people make to find a sense of togetherness so long as that is not used to harm those who perhaps cannot advocate for themselves.  

Edited March 28, 2023 by DrLarry

[oldcopper 275]

35 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I agree it is a useful "mechanism" to cohere and I am sure it offers a great sense of comfort for many people for as long as it remains a nice comfort , however is=t does get weaponized so often in history that I personally feel it somewhat disagreeable in particular when it is used by politicians to stoke reactions that lead to humane approaches  being side lined.  I have never really felt its comforting support personally no more than any other group identity.  When something feels as if it is being used or abusing others then I will happily become an activist again .  Activism does not leave me personally with a sense of belonging any more than the other groups.  Science I suppose provides a good framework simply because it is built of experience and observation yet is founded on the principle of seeking to nullify observations until such a time we reach the limits of what we can disprove.....which at that time then opens a possible explanation for some situation....science is never about fact and I quite like that sense of chaos.  But of course all positions provide an potential for isolation from one part of society or another.  

I respect the choices people make to find a sense of togetherness so long as that is not used to harm those who perhaps cannot advocate for themselves.  

Everyone's tribal to a certain extent, it's part of human nature, the professed exception being certain left-wing white people. I say "professed" because when you see their actions they almost invariably live in other majority white communities. But as an internationalist who says he isn't keen on England, why didn't you choose to stay in the rainbow nation of South Africa as you'd been there for 10 years already? 

And being an unpaid Chief Executive of a SA charity, wouldn't you have been better to have stayed where you would be most needed, as who is going to pay for your flights over there and back - not a cheap option and hopefully not the charity.

[DrLarry 441]

1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

Everyone's tribal to a certain extent, it's part of human nature, the professed exception being certain left-wing white people. I say "professed" because when you see their actions they almost invariably live in other majority white communities. But as an internationalist who says he isn't keen on England, why didn't you choose to stay in the rainbow nation of South Africa as you'd been there for 10 years already? 

And being an unpaid Chief Executive of a SA charity, wouldn't you have been better to have stayed where you would be most needed, as who is going to pay for your flights over there and back - not a cheap option and hopefully not the charity.

I doubt it is even worth meriting that somewhat offensive  statement with a reasoned answer.  But I will.  Like science the purpose of charity is to enable the group you are setting out to empower to run and support themselves.  I relocated for 12 years to simply support one small community with a large issue.  At the time I was doing international development work so i did not need payment.  I did my job and did an additional 30 hours a week.  I returned to my birth place because the young people now have a social enterprise which  funds the work we do with kids who have been raped or abused, who are HIV positive , or have lost both parents.  A unpaid chief executive is a honorary role like a  chancellor and  because that is what the beneficiaries wanted my title to be.  I travel back every two years or so and run workshops for others looking to start small enterprises and donate money from selling a few coins.  But if that offends you I could always edit my profile , I just felt that this is part of who I am and hence happy to share it this is supposed to be a friendly forum where we can feel free to express an opinion.  

It has been my choice to live in the way I do.  I returned because I wanted to use my health insurance to get treatment for cancer so yes I suppose I do live in a predominantly white society not for any other reason that there are not so many people of other nations around me, although we have many Malaysian and Chinese students.  I have a home here so whilst not in the nicest part of the UK (others born here love it)  it is a roof and as you say we all find groups with whom we share interests and this I have done.  Sure I would rather be home in London, but working away for 25 years it was cheaper to return to the house I bought 35 years ago at University.  

 

I hope that allows you to understand me a little clearer.   I made an investment at the right time and so have no need to work for money so I don't and so spent the last 22 years supporting the charity..( for free)  that is my choice.  

[oldcopper 275]

14 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I doubt it is even worth meriting that somewhat offensive  statement with a reasoned answer.  But I will.  Like science the purpose of charity is to enable the group you are setting out to empower to run and support themselves.  I relocated for 12 years to simply support one small community with a large issue.  At the time I was doing international development work so i did not need payment.  I did my job and did an additional 30 hours a week.  I returned to my birth place because the young people now have a social enterprise which  funds the work we do with kids who have been raped or abused, who are HIV positive , or have lost both parents.  A unpaid chief executive is a honorary role like a  chancellor and  because that is what the beneficiaries wanted my title to be.  I travel back every two years or so and run workshops for others looking to start small enterprises and donate money from selling a few coins.  But if that offends you I could always edit my profile , I just felt that this is part of who I am and hence happy to share it this is supposed to be a friendly forum where we can feel free to express an opinion.  

It has been my choice to live in the way I do.  I returned because I wanted to use my health insurance to get treatment for cancer so yes I suppose I do live in a predominantly white society not for any other reason that there are not so many people of other nations around me, although we have many Malaysian and Chinese students.  I have a home here so whilst not in the nicest part of the UK (others born here love it)  it is a roof and as you say we all find groups with whom we share interests and this I have done.  Sure I would rather be home in London, but working away for 25 years it was cheaper to return to the house I bought 35 years ago at University.  

 

I hope that allows you to understand me a little clearer.   I made an investment at the right time and so have no need to work for money so I don't and so spent the last 22 years supporting the charity..( for free)  that is my choice.  

Interesting, but calm down. As you advertise it, it's open to enquiry, and my questions are perfectly sensible. I find it strange that the unpaid Chief Executive Officer of a charity lives half a world away, not a normal arrangement, but you've explained it so there we go - questions answered. No problem!

 

 

[1949threepence 3,366]

On 3/24/2023 at 11:49 AM, oldcopper said:

Considering the average age of death from Covid is and always was 82, and the victims almost invariably had various co-morbidities such as obesity, the authorities initial idea of vaccinating the at risk elderly seemed reasonable.

The rolling it out to other age groups is incomprehensible though, based on spurious transmission/infection theories for which there has never been any evidence. Pfizer for one never claimed their vaccine had any effect on either transmission or infection, it just mitigated the symptoms. But you wouldn't go and see your granny if you had flu-like symptoms anyway. 

It's worth seeing Andrew Bridgen (available on his YT channel) empty the Commons last Friday before making some damning observations from the government's own data about the current risk/benefit of continuing the booster programme. An eye opener, but no one debates or debunks what he is saying, which tells the story really. 

 

On 3/24/2023 at 11:56 AM, 1949threepence said:

Yep, that was a bit pathetic wasn't it. I'd have made a point of stopping, not the least because I can't stand being expected to act in groupthink ways. Even if I disagreed with all that he said, I'd still have stopped.

On a personal level, even though I do think his holocaust remarks were stupid, I stand and applaud his personal courage and commitment in the face of ridicule.     

Just been watching Dr John Campbell on his you tube channel showing another speech on the same issue, this time by Sir Christopher Chope, with only three other members (including Bridgen and the Minister) on the Tory benches and the Labour benches having once again emptied. Chope made reference to a rather dismissive statement given by the PM when told about one of Chope's constituents who had suffered vaccine damage.

Vaccine damage payments are being made, so logically, there is a factual acknowledgement that this does occasionally happen.  

So I'm not quite sure what the issue with MP's is here? What point are they making by walking out? If it's a denial that the vaccine cannot cause damage then that's patently absurd as vaccine damage payments as a result of the covid jab, are being made - that is hard fact. From the POV of some consituents it may be perceived that their MP has some sort of weird problem with their physical predicament. 

I think I will write to my MP and ask for an explanation as I think the public are entitled to know. 

 

 

[oldcopper 275]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

 

Just been watching Dr John Campbell on his you tube channel showing another speech on the same issue, this time by Sir Christopher Chope, with only three other members (including Bridgen and the Minister) on the Tory benches and the Labour benches having once again emptied. Chope made reference to a rather dismissive statement given by the PM when told about one of Chope's constituents who had suffered vaccine damage.

Vaccine damage payments are being made, so logically, there is a factual acknowledgement that this does occasionally happen.  

So I'm not quite sure what the issue with MP's is here? What point are they making by walking out? If it's a denial that the vaccine cannot cause damage then that's patently absurd as vaccine damage payments as a result of the covid jab, are being made - that is hard fact. From the POV of some consituents it may be perceived that their MP has some sort of weird problem with their physical predicament. 

I think I will write to my MP and ask for an explanation as I think the public are entitled to know. 

 

 

That's the thing - if a government person explained to Parliament why the information given by Bridgen, Chope was wrong, or put out some official rebuttal with stronger counter-evidence, that would be that. Yet their approach, followed slavishly by the media, is to pretend that this subject does not exist. It's as if they think - if we ignore it, it'll go away.

To many of us it seems the politicians have backed themselves into a corner, which is why they're now in full la-la land, as of course they can't admit what a humungous cock-up they've made of it all. I can see them doing the same with Net Zero in years to come. Are they under instruction or have nearly all of them completely lost their marbles?

 

[1949threepence 3,366]

19 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

That's the thing - if a government person explained to Parliament why the information given by Bridgen, Chope was wrong, or put out some official rebuttal with stronger counter-evidence, that would be that. Yet their approach, followed slavishly by the media, is to pretend that this subject does not exist. It's as if they think - if we ignore it, it'll go away.

To many of us it seems the politicians have backed themselves into a corner, which is why they're now in full la-la land, as of course they can't admit what a humungous cock-up they've made of it all. I can see them doing the same with Net Zero in years to come. Are they under instruction or have nearly all of them completely lost their marbles?

 

I certainly don't believe that the thinking of many is entirely rational. Moreover they seem to be placing "party politics", for want of a better expression to describe the bizarre, ahead of their consitituents.

Almost certainly a few of the constituents of all the MP's will have been affected to a greater or lesser extent by vaccine side effects. So even those who had an initial bad reaction are going to be in sympathy with others who suffered more long term damage. So any of them could be forgiven for wondering why their MP (be they Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Welsh, Green, or whatever) does not appear willing to acknowledge their problems - quite the reverse in fact.

I really do think this needs addressing. MP's are there to represent their constituents, not treat them like simpletons, based on collective dogma.

As for net zero by 2030, it manifestly isn't going to happen. That is blindingly obvious. So why keep up up this idiotic pretence? (2050 maybe). Parliament should already be drawing a lesson from the ULEZ protests and the civil disobedience/vandalism of ULEZ street furniture currently ensuing, that the public will only put up with so much nonsense.