c4countdown

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:02 pm That would be the best thing ever.

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:18 pm Not sure if it's an ireland thing or just my personal GP but before covid you could basically turn up in the morning and join a queue to be seen up to about 12pm but then afternoons were for appointments that you've phoned for.

Now you always have to phone but I think it's as you say Gavin. You phone up in the morning and ask for an appointment. You usually will be seen that day, maybe the next. I don't think I've ever had to wait more than a day to see my GP.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 11:48 am What are people's experiences about waiting for a GP appointment? I was reading this article on the BBC, and it was talking about people waiting more than two weeks. But I thought it was standard these days for appointments all to be on the same day that you make them. Basically you and everyone else ring up at 8:00am when the lines open in a race to get one of the available appointments. And you either get one that day or you have to try again tomorrow. Is this not standard then?

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 10:27 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 11:48 am What are people's experiences about waiting for a GP appointment? I was reading this article on the BBC, and it was talking about people waiting more than two weeks. But I thought it was standard these days for appointments all to be on the same day that you make them. Basically you and everyone else ring up at 8:00am when the lines open in a race to get one of the available appointments. And you either get one that day or you have to try again tomorrow. Is this not standard then?

Those days are long gone. since computerisation of GP surgeries came about the on-line system puts up available spaces for you to book, if you want a choice of GP then the chances are you'll wait two weeks, if you're less choosy then you may get an appointment earlier. sometimes you can be lucky and get an obvious cancellation (thankfully people do cancel!). I think if you phone and go through the third degree process you may well stand a better chance of getting an earlier appointment.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 10:08 pm Elliott, your experience sounds horrible. If someone collapsing with potentially a heart attack isn't an immediate medical emergency, I'm not sure what is.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 10:08 pm Elliott, your experience sounds horrible. If someone collapsing with potentially a heart attack isn't an immediate medical emergency, I'm not sure what is.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 12:10 pm Turns out the UK is a police state then. Surprise surprise. (Anti-monarchists arrested for no apparent reason.)

A significant police operation is under way in central London. We have made a number of arrests in the area of Carlton House Terrace. The individuals have been held on suspicion of breaching the peace. Earlier today we arrested four people in the area of St Martin’s Lane. They were held on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance. We seized lock-on devices. A further three people were arrested in the area of Wellington Arch. They were held on suspicion of possessing articles to cause criminal damage. There will be further updates later today.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 2:20 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 12:10 pm Turns out the UK is a police state then. Surprise surprise. (Anti-monarchists arrested for no apparent reason.)

A significant police operation is under way in central London. We have made a number of arrests in the area of Carlton House Terrace. The individuals have been held on suspicion of breaching the peace. Earlier today we arrested four people in the area of St Martin’s Lane. They were held on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance. We seized lock-on devices. A further three people were arrested in the area of Wellington Arch. They were held on suspicion of possessing articles to cause criminal damage. There will be further updates later today.

Enough reasons for you there Gev?

"So much for the right to peaceful protest," the group said, adding the force would not give the reasons for their arrest.

Matt Turnbull, one of those detained, said the straps holding the placards had been "misconstrued".

"To be honest we were never going to be allowed to be a visible force here - they knew we were coming, and they were going to find a way to stop this," he told the BBC.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:40 pm 'Not my King.' then fuck off then.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:00 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 5:40 pm 'Not my King.' then fuck off then.

There's not much difference between supporting the Conservatives (which you hate) and supporting the monarchy, but whatever. And you're against protests too? Sounds like you'd fit right in.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:16 pm
I cannot see how the UK abolishing the monarchy can be better financially than the status quo

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:28 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:16 pm
I cannot see how the UK abolishing the monarchy can be better financially than the status quo

I'm not sure I agree. I think this is quite a weak argument personally, that people wheel out because it's easier than having a genuine discussion on abolishing the monarchy.

People come to Britain to view the buildings as a result of the history associated with them, not in the hope that they'll catch a glimpse of the monarch eating their cucumber sandwiches in the grounds. I'm not sure I believe that the tourism lost from not having an active monarchy, but opening the buildings and grounds up for viewing, would be so significant that it would outweigh the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the monarchy. If anything, I think you'd probably get more tourism in because you could relax a lot of the restrictions that are applied in the name of giving the family privacy.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:22 pm So protesting is for causes that you personally believe in?

The masses have been hoodwinked by the concept of the monarchy and royalty and the people that have all this wealth and status just because they were born into it. People need to wake up to this.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:37 pm So you honestly think that the 'not my king' brigade wouldn't teardown buck house or open it up to the homeless rather than allow monarchist tourists to celebrate the past..
Im not sure if the 'Not my king' brigade have a manifesto but I would be interested to see what they think we should do

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:45 pm
So if you was well off would you give all your money to charity rather than your offspring?

I do agree the monarchy needs scaling

But i feel that if you want a legitimate target pick on the tories and the greedy bastards profiting from the war in Ukraine like the oil companies and energy providers.
Or form a political party.
Or join the principalked Lib Dems lol.
Never will I forgive them turncoat for getting into bed with Cameron for a bit of power.
I have gone off message here though

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:37 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:28 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:16 pm
I cannot see how the UK abolishing the monarchy can be better financially than the status quo

I'm not sure I agree. I think this is quite a weak argument personally, that people wheel out because it's easier than having a genuine discussion on abolishing the monarchy.

People come to Britain to view the buildings as a result of the history associated with them, not in the hope that they'll catch a glimpse of the monarch eating their cucumber sandwiches in the grounds. I'm not sure I believe that the tourism lost from not having an active monarchy, but opening the buildings and grounds up for viewing, would be so significant that it would outweigh the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the monarchy. If anything, I think you'd probably get more tourism in because you could relax a lot of the restrictions that are applied in the name of giving the family privacy.

So you honestly think that the 'not my king' brigade wouldn't teardown buck house or open it up to the homeless rather than allow monarchist tourists to celebrate the past..
Im not sure if the 'Not my king' brigade have a manifesto but I would be interested to see what they think we should do

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:45 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 7:22 pm So protesting is for causes that you personally believe in?

The masses have been hoodwinked by the concept of the monarchy and royalty and the people that have all this wealth and status just because they were born into it. People need to wake up to this.

So if you was well off would you give all your money to charity rather than your offspring?
I do agree the monarchy needs scaling
But i feel that if you want a legitimate target pick on the tories and the greedy bastards profiting from the war in Ukraine like the oil companies and energy providers.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 8:54 pm Virtually every millionaire has made their wealth by exploiting someone (I don't include those who have won it) along the way
Especially if you're a communist

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 9:12 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 8:54 pm Virtually every millionaire has made their wealth by exploiting someone (I don't include those who have won it) along the way
Especially if you're a communist

I think that's quite a lazy argument to justify the royal family. The few millionaires I've known were extremely hard working individuals - one started a business that became lucrative (and put in a lot of hours to make it work), one grafted their bollocks off and became a leading expert in their field, another saved very fervently, worked long hours and gained promotions while at it (though they then died in their 50s). It's not quite the same as having an enormous subsidy that the public pays for, in order to unveil a few plaques, sit at a few ceremonies and conduct a few visitations.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 9:27 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 9:12 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 8:54 pm Virtually every millionaire has made their wealth by exploiting someone (I don't include those who have won it) along the way
Especially if you're a communist

I think that's quite a lazy argument to justify the royal family. The few millionaires I've known were extremely hard working individuals - one started a business that became lucrative (and put in a lot of hours to make it work), one grafted their bollocks off and became a leading expert in their field, another saved very fervently, worked long hours and gained promotions while at it (though they then died in their 50s). It's not quite the same as having an enormous subsidy that the public pays for, in order to unveil a few plaques, sit at a few ceremonies and conduct a few visitations.

I'm guessing to make their millions they would have employed people and by definition exploited these people by keeping more money for themselves.
Yes I'm being flippant but it's communism that wants to abolish the monarchy
Russia did that and look how that turned out

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 8:07 am Branding people communists for not placing value in the royals is a bit flimsy.

Letter: Universities must tolerate debate
Sir,

We are academics at the University of Oxford, possessed of a range of different political beliefs, Left and Right. We wholeheartedly condemn the decision of the Oxford University Student Union (Oxford SU) to sever its ties with the Oxford Union (the Union) after the latter’s refusal to rescind an invitation to the philosopher and gender-critical feminist Kathleen Stock.

Professor Stock believes that biological sex in humans is real and socially salient, a view which until recently would have been so commonplace as to hardly merit asserting. Whether or not one agrees with Professor Stock’s views, there is no plausible and attractive ideal of academic freedom, or of free speech more generally, which would condemn their expression as outside the bounds of permissible discourse. Unfortunately, the position of her opponents seems to be that Professor Stock’s views are so illicit that they cannot be safely discussed in front of an audience of consenting and intelligent adults at the main debating society at the University of Oxford. If this were the case, it is doubtful that they could be safely expressed anywhere – a result that, as her opponents are no doubt satisfied to find, would amount to their effective prohibition.

Fortunately, it has become clear that the Union’s capitulation cannot be secured by the usual methods of moralistic browbeating and social censure. However, Oxford SU is now threatening its financial model by seeking to prevent the Union from having a stall at future freshers’ fairs. This is dangerous territory. Universities exist, among other things, to promote free inquiry and the disinterested pursuit of the truth by means of reasoned argument. To resort to coercion and financial threats when unable to secure one’s preferred outcome in debate would represent a profound failure to live up to these ideals.

Universities must remain places where contentious views can be openly discussed. The salient alternative to this, one apparently favoured by many of Professor Stock’s opponents, is simply unacceptable: a state of affairs in which the institutions of a university collude to suppress the expression of controversial, but potentially true, viewpoints in an effort to prevent them from becoming more widely known.

Signed:

Dr Julius Grower, Faculty of Law and St Hugh’s College

Dr Michael Biggs, Department of Sociology and St Cross College

Dr Roger Teichmann, St Hilda’s College

Professor Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology, Faculty of Theology

Professor Jeff McMahan, Sekyra and White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy and Corpus Christi College

Dr Edward Howell, Department of Politics and International Relations and New College

Dr Marie Kawthar Daouda, Oriel College

Dr Jonathan Price, Faculty of Law and St Cross College

Colin Mills, Department of Sociology and Nuffield College

John Maier, Balliol College

Dr Alexander Morrison, Faculty of History and New College

Dr Richard Gipps, Blackfriars Hall

Professor Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine

Kathryn Webb, Oxford Institute of Clinical Psychology Training and Research and Harris Manchester College

Dr Tim Mawson, St Peter’s College

Edward Hadas, Blackfriars Hall

Professor Richard Dawkins, New College

Professor Jonathan Jones, Department of Physics and Brasenose College

Professor Lawrence Goldman, Emeritus Fellow, St Peter’s College

Professor James Binney, Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics and Merton College

James Forder, Balliol College

Clive Hambler, Lecturer in Biology and Human Sciences, Hertford College

Daniel Villar, Department of Biology

Yuan Yi Zhu, Research Fellow, Harris Manchester College, and Nuffield College

Professor Richard Ekins KC (Hon), Professor of Law and Constitutional Government, St John’s College

Professor Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair of Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy

David Carpenter, Faculty of History

Professor Timothy Williamson, Wykeham Professor of Logic, Faculty of Philosophy

Daniel Kodsi, Trinity College

Professor Susan Bright, Professor of Land Law, Faculty of Law

Professor Joel David Hamkins, Professor of Logic, Associate Faculty Member, Faculty of Philosophy

Dr Ruth Dixon, College Lecturer, the Queen’s College

Professor John Tasioulas, Professor of Ethics and Legal Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy and Balliol College

Xenofon Kalogeropoulos, Faculty of Classics and St Anne’s College

Jane Cooper, All Souls College

Dr Abhijit Sarkar, Faculty of History

Professor Edward Harcourt, Professor of Philosophy, Keble College

Professor Michael Bentley, Senior Research Fellow, St Hugh’s College

Professor Catharine Abell, Faculty of Philosophy and the Queen’s College

Professor John Chalker, Department of Physics and St Hugh’s College

Dr Sophie Allen, Faculty of Philosophy and St Peter’s College

Professor Volker Halbach, Professor of Philosophy, New College

Sir Noel Malcolm, All Souls College

Aftab Mallick, Brasenose College

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 3:41 pm It's like the famous saying says (I'm probably paraphrasing here)
"I might not agree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it"
Voltaire

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 12:59 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 3:41 pm It's like the famous saying says (I'm probably paraphrasing here)
"I might not agree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it"
Voltaire

When I spoke at the Oxford Union last year about the alarming recent popularity of people filming things vertically on their phones, I was immediately shut down by the woke thought-police who refused to engage in any discussion and shouted me down with slogans like "who is this", "how did he get on the stage", "excuse me we're in the middle of a debate, were you actually invited to speak here today" and "for the last time could you please leave the premises". I've been banned from expressing my views in a supposedly free country, and I'll be speaking at length about how I can't say anything any more on my GB News show tomorrow yada yada yada.

Seriously, nobody is questioning Professor Stock's right to say what she wants. This is about whether others have an obligation to give her a platform by inviting her to speak at their venue. Which they don't.

Edit to add: specifically, this is about whether others have an obligation to continue to associate themselves with organisations that do invite her to speak. Which they don't.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 10:06 am

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 12:59 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 3:41 pm It's like the famous saying says (I'm probably paraphrasing here)
"I might not agree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it"
Voltaire

When I spoke at the Oxford Union last year about the alarming recent popularity of people filming things vertically on their phones, I was immediately shut down by the woke thought-police who refused to engage in any discussion and shouted me down with slogans like "who is this", "how did he get on the stage", "excuse me we're in the middle of a debate, were you actually invited to speak here today" and "for the last time could you please leave the premises". I've been banned from expressing my views in a supposedly free country, and I'll be speaking at length about how I can't say anything any more on my GB News show tomorrow yada yada yada.

Seriously, nobody is questioning Professor Stock's right to say what she wants. This is about whether others have an obligation to give her a platform by inviting her to speak at their venue. Which they don't.

Edit to add: specifically, this is about whether others have an obligation to continue to associate themselves with organisations that do invite her to speak. Which they don't.

I read this without reading the previous posts for context. For a few seconds at the start I thought Graeme had spoken at Oxford Union about portrait video, and got very excited about that. Having read the rest of the post I now doubt this and think it was just a joke, but am still adamant that Graeme should get to speak at Oxford Union about portrait videos, or whatever topic he wants. And I will fight to the death for his right to do so.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 11:45 am I think this is a bit insane really.

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 1:18 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 11:45 am I think this is a bit insane really.

What's insane is not understanding that the actual objective of the story is to make people read the headline and think the looney left, political correctness brigade have gone too far again when in reality it's one fucking student that could have been easily ignored. It's irresponsible "journalism" and sharing the story is just adding to the nonsense culture war bullshit discourse.

Where is the article about me wanting to ban chemistry being taught because I sucked at it?

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 12:05 pm Whereas the Major using the word in Fawlty Towers didn't add anything (it wasn't funny and didn't develop the character or plot; it was just a bit egregious) and could.probably be done without.

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 3:04 pm https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

There might be liberal elements in the BBC but let's not pretend they are in any way on the left. I do think they try to adhere to balance better than some other media outlets but the best I could say is the BBC's overarching ideology is centre right.

Did you completely forget the number they did on Corbyn?

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:05 pm Your last sentence is exactly MY point - this is why the N-word adds nothing, because we already know the major is an out-of-touch buffoon. At that point, it's just using the word for the sake of it.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:21 pm

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:05 pm Your last sentence is exactly MY point - this is why the N-word adds nothing, because we already know the major is an out-of-touch buffoon. At that point, it's just using the word for the sake of it.

I think using the word (outside of being a direct insult) wasn't quite as taboo back then so I don't think someone putting it in a comedy would go through the same inevitable thought process that they would now about whether they should really be doing it.

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 3:04 pmHere's the BBC being "left on social issues".

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 9:58 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 3:04 pmHere's the BBC being "left on social issues".

You must have missed this then. https://order-order.com/2023/05/19/bbc- ... -coverage/

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:38 pm Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:03 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:38 pm Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:50 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:03 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:38 pm Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

Nah that's bollocks. It's not (or shouldn't be) about what you can get away with. The guidelines are very clear that traffic offences are not valid expenses.