coprolite

I have no mental health issues (except some sexual deviancy) and am quite fat. What should i be held accountable for exactly? And to whom? If it's just for being fat, then i'm not sure that's any of your business frankly.

First part's going to be a laugh and hopefully we don't get a talking point on it from tomorrow's game. Agree with the second point.

I get your point that bullying can be harmful without being discriminatory and that it is harder to get legal protection. That's not quite what you said before but i'll not labour the point. I guess a difficulty is that it can be a lot more subjective. One person's challenging target is another's impossible task. Another difficulty is that bullies often get into positions of power and are unlikely to legislate against themselves. When the Home Secretary's well documented and unambiguous bullying gets condoned by the PM, the game's pretty much a bogey.

What did he say? Also did he have an opinion on kicking lumps out of other players?

There's no such thing as a protected class. There are protected characteristics which everybody has. You have a gender, a race, a nationality, a sexual orientation and any harassment or discrimination on the basis of those is legally no different from harassment or discrimination suffered by a black lesbian because she's a black lesbian. Minorities have no greater protection from bullying than anyone else.

Goddammit i got the aphex album wrong. That's off of drukqs (sp?) isn't it. Looking forward to some virtuoso spinning to bring all these threads together now.

For illustrative purposes

New cases peaked about a month ago, so the number of people with covid probably peaked about a day ago. If there are say 100,000 people with coronavirus, r=1 means each of them will on average infect 1 person. Say these people are on average half way through a four week bout, If 70,000 have already infected someone, then you'd expect 30,000 new cases from this cohort over the next two weeks. Obviously those 30,000 will also infect people so that won't be all the new cases.

Watched episode one so far. Highlights have been more visual (mass rallies in China) and aural (Aphex Twin computer controlled acoustic instruments) than any great ideas or narratives. I did enjoy the Oswald/playboy story and thought the theme of that was closest to meeting my expectations. I thought some of the archive footage about uk immigration was great but not convinced he built a great narrative or said anything interesting beyond the content of the clips. The China stuff was generally a misfire for me. Will be interested to see if these are separate threads from the rest of the series or will be woven together. I expect the latter but it's a much longer series than usual.

Assuming our only fit striker starts up front-I thought McGinn and Kennedy linked up well last week. If one is on the wing and the other behind the striker we might actually be able to unlock a defence. I'd have Kennedy on the wing for pace. Hayes has been poor the last couple of weeks and McLennan has offered little but Hayes looks more likely to do something positive, through sheer effort. So he gets the other side. That leaves us three midfielders and three centre backs, so 352 or 3511 it is. I'd like to see Ferguson most advanced of the three with McCrorie bombing past. Then all changing after 5 minutes due to someone dislocating their pelvis.

I was wondering where the abuse was going to start. He does sound like a bullying twat (from hearing one side of the story) but that's trivialising the word "abuse" and doing a disservice to people who have suffered actual abuse. Maybe there's more to it, i don't know.

Fair play, i don't think my work would do that if we couldn't work from home. Sensible thing to do

It looks likely but fairly marginal, based on https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39400/bsa37_social-inequality-in-england-and-scotland.pdf maddeningly the preceding chapter covers attitude to tax and spend but isn’t broken down between nations.

Spectacular focus group based short termism by Milibands Labour fucked that. Now any party calling for standard keynesian fiscal expansion with a moderate social democratic agenda (corbyn 2017) gets to be classed as "far left". Just making the argument isn't enough. The argument needs to be sneaked into current discourse so that people don't recognise it at first. The current nhs fetish is a great opportunity.

Is it possible that the old boys network might have taken out the city? Looks like it might be just mone laundering and tax evasion left for them soon, and the Dutch have a pretty solid offshore network too so even that's not guaranteed.

Overly reductivist imo. Another way to look at it is your free will is made up of and expressed through biochemistry. The biochemical interactions in your brain make up who you are. Free will only doesn't exist if you expect there to be a non-biological agent (a soul) to have and enact it.

I've recently discovered the fantastic Jalapeno and Cheese flavour of Walkers Max. The packet boldly declares they go well with beer. They ain't wrong. Since the gym's shut, i might as well have a packet of each with a couple of those massive bottles of lager.

I just had walkers max kfc flavour for the first but definitely not last time. I blame the Government.

I bet they didn't pay them.

Rural areas have older populations in general, so fewer symptomatic or serious cases?

"The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin" -David St Hubbins

I don't think it's the best way to provide for pensioners but i think it's the best currently feasible way. I think your second paragraph is suggesting that reform might be more feasible now that the Austerity myth has been accepted as fiction. I'm not so sure that a few dry, factual articles in the more sober media will displace the front pages and easy to understand credit card metaphors in the minds of the population at large for some time. Although spending on pensions does seem more palatable, so maybe we can be more optimistic.

Well, yes it is only helping today's pensioners but by less than it will help future pensioners because of the compounding effects of above inflation rises. I completely agree with your second paragraph. But so long as we have a Tory media going hysterical about any extra cash going to poor people, or god forbid being taken from people who need it less, the triple lock is the best way to ensure that the pension approaches what it needs to be.

Why’s that? presumably because those who benefit most are today’s young people, and it’s the job of today’s senior citizens to f**k them over?

breadcrumbed, battered or otherwise crispy coated oven ready products should go on baking paper. I’ve just changed your life for the better but feel like I should be posting on mumsnet.