Look at these nasty bunch of antisemites denying the obvious antisemite issues and claiming that Corbyn is anti racist. Misguided fools; what could 200 prominent Jewish academics, professionals and scholars know about it anyway?

Those headlights though 🤮

Other than that, I’d have one. (Entirely academic as I couldn’t afford one, and it’s unlikely to come to the U.K.)

Vote for policies. Vote Green.

If we had PR, then I’d totally agree. But we don’t, we have this stupid bipartisan system with the current incumbent party being demonstrably both incompetent and evil, to varying degrees. So I’ll always go with the least worst option. And whilst I do have my doubts about Corbyn’s potential effectiveness as a leader of the country, I did take the time to read the last Labour manifesto and a lot of that chimed as reasonable and achievable.

its ALL about faith, some have faith in a creator and others have Faith in what a scientist has told them. Faith.

All right George Michael, calm down. You’re wrong by the way. There is NO place for faith where science, and evidence is concerned. It’s the absence of evidence that requires faith.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read

Sure that looks like an interesting philosophical debate and all. But if god is ‘the light of being itself’ (and he/she may be, and I have no issue with people believing so at all) why does that make it okay for believers of such to enforce rules based on their impossible to evidence opinions on people who don’t believe such, or believe a different version of such. And why should such beliefs qualify for tax breaks? Ie; why am I subsidising them just because they believe something? I believe that they should subsidise me because I believe in Odin, but I’m peeing in the wind I think…

This is the danger of lumping all religious people together and making sweeping statements about them.

Agreed. I presume that puts you in the ‘keeping it to yourself’ camp, and that’s great with me. I’d happily do the same with my atheism; my vocal objections are not aimed at religion per se, just the behaviour of a sizeable, and vocal, minority.

Unfortunately the atheists who bang on about having religion forced down their throats don’t seem to realise this works both ways.

No, it really doesn’t work both ways. That’s a ridiculous statement, outside of this thread which you don’t ‘have’ to read.
There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.
There are no atheists holding a portion of the U.K. to ransom and enforcing a different set of human rights because of their lack of belief.
There are no atheists hacking away at non consenting, not yet indoctrinated children’s genitalia en masse because of habits and customs that they have always had. Etc, etc.

Atheists get stroppy because they see other people beliefs thrust upon them in a myriad of both insignificant and significant ways, and it’s deemed acceptable because it always been that way. It not right and it shouldn’t happen. By all means believe what you want, but keep it to yourself please.

turns out the nurses had booked an emergency transfer

Abusing/gaming/not understanding the system is not just for the general public, ‘professionals’ do it too. The occasional GP has been know to play this game as well…

Seems folk need educating on what 999 is for

Oh you would be amazed. However, so long as the NHS ambulance service is commissioned and paid by call volume dealt with, there will be no will within the organisation to change.

The most frustrating thing about the OPs situation (as an ambo bod) is we are sent to far less deserving cases in their masses but because of a risk averse algorithm that the (low paid, non clinical) 999 and 111 call takers have to stick to, you’re more likely to get an ambulance if you’re a (for example) panicky 19yo with a sore throat (interpreted as breathing difficulties, neck pain, possible airway compromise) than a stoic 80yo with a deformed fractured limb (interpreted as peripheral limb fracture, no priority symptoms, able to make own way). It’s a shit system, and it won’t change unless society has a wholesale rethink on individual acceptance of risk.

I don’t think that ‘a little bit of mutilation’ of an infant should ever be acceptable, male or female. And for there to be a difference due to gender is just weird, and archaic. I think (hope?) that in one hundred years society will look back on all forms of ritual genital mutilation of babies as unenlightened savagery.

I guess what needs to change isn’t the law but rather cultural attitudes…

I am sure you are right, but the same could be said for FGM, and banning it has been an important step in that direction I think. If the law condones a practice, arguments against it are always going to be weakened.

Two infants are put in for unnecessary cosmetic surgery; one has his little finger amputated, the other has her arm cut off. Are they comparable?

I’m slightly frustrated at my own apparent inability to express the fact that I completely agree in regard to the differences of severity. However, the article you previously posted has moved my opinion towards thinking that the two procedures are comparable; not the same, but they have parallels that are important, specifically in regard to consent, and in regard to the right of an infant not to be assaulted. I don’t think that ‘it’s only a little bit of skin’ or we’ve always done it’ or ‘God tells us to’ should be adequate defense to what should be an offence against the person. Yet they apparently continue to be so long as the victim is male.

In regards to FGM being termed as such, that is only in our society. You’ll find that in different societies there are people arguing eloquently in support of continued FGM. Also, there are apparently a whole range of degrees of FGM, ranging from ‘just a tiny ritual knick’ to the already aforementioned horrors. The least invasive and often supported forms involve a small strip of skin being cut from the clitoral hood, leaving all other structures unaffected. This is still illegal in the U.K. (and rightly so, for all of the same reasons that I have previously argued) but is actually less traumatic and involves less tissue loss than legal male circumcision. How is that difference due to infant gender morally defensible?

The only reason ritual male circumcision is lawful is because people would continue to practise it in their own home, in unhygienic conditions.

I accept that that is probably true, but it could (and probably is) also be used as an argument to keep FGM (in its mildest forms at least) legal.

prohibition has proved time and again not to work particularly well so whether this would be a good idea in practice or not I honestly don’t know.

But FGM, in all its forms, IS prohibited, and yes it does still occur in back streets. Is this a good argument for it not to be prohibited?

But circumcision, ive had more traumatic haircuts.

How many nerve endings do you have in your hair? And it must be troublesome having your foreskin resnipped every 8-10 weeks. I’m sorry but that argument doesn’t stand up (so to speak 😉)

they’re not the same.

I have not said that they are. See my previous post.

My interest (I’m not campaigning, I’m just discussing it on a MTB forum) is not personal. As my OP stated, the recent news coverage of FGM got me thinking about what I thought of as a legislated inequality (I was told that was an incorrect assertion, and IANAL, but no reasons were given). My interest is mainly of challenging accepted cultural norms; I tend to think that when society’s position seems to be ‘because it’s always been that way’ or ‘because god says so’, it’s healthy to always ask ‘but why?’.

I haven’t heard a coherent argument in favour of male circumcision of infants for cultural, religious or superstitious reasons yet, but I’m still listening. I do tend to think that the medical principle of informed consent (and if not possible as in the case of an infant, acting in their best interests, doing the least harm possible) should apply, whether the individual be male or female, and I remain interested as to why others disagree.

Well, that and they’re not the same… …there’s very very tenuous link.

A ‘very very tenuous link’? Come on.

Firstly; I need to emphasise that I am not trying to lessen or take away that FGM is cruel, barbaric and heinous practice. It absolutely is, and I’m glad that there is a specific law against it, and even more so that it has now been successfully brought to bear. Took long enough, sadly.

There are differences between FGM and male circumcision I agree. They are anatomical, of severity of impact on the victim, and of societal blindness to an accepted convention. However the similarities are indisputable, and cannot be described as tenuous; the arguments that can be found both for and against both are remarkably similar, if if made by very different groups of people. The fundamental fact that they are both removing human tissue without the consent of the human in the case of the practice on infants. The fact that they are both advocated largely for custom and religious reasons rather than medical reasons. The fact that they have both been historically justified for reasons of controlling or reducing sexual response. The fact that the advocates of both practices tend to be those who have ‘had it done to them and it didn’t do them any harm’. I could go on.

Please, read Cougar’s linked article. It’s a lot more of a big deal and a lot more traumatic than it’s proponents would have us believe, and than I realised. Just because we happen to accept it as mostly normal in our society, shouldn’t mean that it it remains unchallenged in practice.

Tobacco and weed
Alcohol and cocaine
Knives and guns

How about;
Stealing from a bank and stealing from a charity
Hitting a bloke or hitting a woman
Defrauding your employer or defrauding the taxman

Similar/same crimes, linked more than tenuously. Variations of severity, impact on the victim and societal willingness to turn a blind eye.

An article that expresses my position more eloquently than I could hope to.

Better legalise FGM then….

You’re just rationalising contradictions in your own logic.

I think that the point is that male circumcision is (rightly or wrongly) widely accepted as acceptable in our society, whilst FGM isn’t. It’s legislation by moral pragmatism rather than moral absolutism, which I expect most legislation has to be in order to pass.

Cougar, thanks for the article, it made interesting reading. Although, it does seem to seek to somewhat narrow the gap between FGM and male circumcision don’t you think? Possibly more than I would want or dare to, for fear of being accused of GeeTeeism, which I think I’m a whisker away from being accused of anyway.

I suppose it was inevitable that stwers would try to make this issue about men.

It’s not. It’s really not. It’s about children of any gender having the right to not have lumps of flesh chopped off them for reasons of superstition and ancient custom. I think that’s fair enough. The only place that gender comes into it is in that I pondered whether it’s right that the legislation was gender specific, when it probably should apply to children across the board. I was also interested in challenging accepted opinion, because I don’t think that ‘because we’ve always done it that way’ is ever an excuse for assaulting an infant.

Watch out for the braking bumps!

I wonder which type of FGM that gynaecologist is talking about, because it’s definitley not this.

No shit. She’s a loony, if she even exists. But her points are analogous with those made defending male infant circumcision.

Whereas fgm not only has no benefits for the woman, it’s brutally detrimental and harmful.

Whilst I certainly and wholeheartedly agree, others don’t. The female gynaecologist Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid, for example, states;

It takes away excessive libido from women

It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.

It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections

It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

I’m perfectly happy to call bollocks on the above, but it sounds awfully like some of the justifications for male circumcision to me…

Sauce

Actually; there’s many different types of FGM, all barbaric and clumsily justified by faith, custom and cultural reasons. It’s certainly true that most FGM is far more barbaric than what we understand to be a western style male circumcision. However, no one, repeat NO ONE tried to argue otherwise. The issue that I feel uncomfortable about with male circumcision is that it occurs, for either no (or dubious) medical reasons, and it happens to infants that CAN NOT CONSENT. We as a society are condoning the cutting of children’s genitals for reasons of custom, faith and tradition, so long as they are boys, and you know, it’s not too traumatic. It’s wrong. Plain wrong.

So far on this thread, we’ve had the ‘didnt do me any harm’ argument (as utilised by the practitioners of FGM, no doubt),
the ‘but FGM is really bad’ argument’ very true but that doesn’t justify male circumcision of infants by priests for no good reason FFS,
the ‘male circumcision is harmless’ argument; well yes if your lucky enough not to be one of the little ones that are accidentally castrated, suffer accidental penile amputation or die from blood loss I suppose that’s true (no wait; you’ve taken away flesh without consent, that’s not okay), and
the ‘it’s not done to inhibit sexual pleasure so it’s not so bad’ argument; well actually there’s a HEAP of evidence to suggest that’s a massive motivator for doing it, at least historically, and maybe still in some parts of the world.

Any I’ve missed?

My mate got circumcised at the age of 25 because his foreskin was too tight and he couldn’t pull it back even erect. He was literally scared of having sex.

In that situation it makes sense.

Even then there are much less traumatic alternatives. But the main thing is that your mate was an adult, and able to give informed consent for the procedure. Something denied to many millions of infants, male and female, in the name of barbaric faith and cultural custom.

I, along with all my brothers, was done. And seeing what two of my own little guys have gone through with periodic infections makes me glad I was.

I wasn’t done. I’ve never had an infection of note. My two boys weren’t done. They’ve never had an infection of note. Infant boys have, and will continue to die from having it done. It is unlikely that anybody has died from not having it done, except for in cases of medical necessity.

Strikes me that this archaic practice should be left to the the medical professionals and the consenting adults, and shouldn’t be being inflicted upon babies because of superstition and tribalism, by non medical professionals, without analgesia, any more.

In what way is there a “legislated inequality”? That’s nonsense.

In that the legislature refers to females specifically, and makes no reference to male genital mutilation. I’m a little disappointed that that had to be spelled out.

Male circumcision is done for several reasons including religious, cultural and health,

Okay, so let’s ban it except in cases that are for health reasons or that involve a consenting adult, like ear piercing and tattoos. Reasonable?

…according to the NHS there’s evidence to suggest that it reduces the risk of HIV infection.

Controversial evidence, at best.

Is bollocks

Is self evidently NOT bollocks; and is selective quoting. The differences on non icy/snowy tarmac are, by definition, marginal. You may feel that the margins are sufficient to be worth it, and that’s fair enough. But it’s perfectly possible to drive safely 95% of the time in a U.K. winter on bog standard tyres, driving appropriately to the conditions. Notwithstanding severe weather events and very wild corners of the country.

we’d castigate anyone who willingly went out in a car knowing that they had no brakes, which is basically what many people are doing now.

Holy hyperbole batman. MASSIVE exaggeration alert. Unless there’s actually compacted snow on the ground, the difference in performance between boggo tyres and winter tyres is marginal, at best. Drivers should always drive appropriately for the conditions, which it is entirely possible to do 98% of the time in the U.K. on normal tyres. There’s also an argument that having winter tyres on would give some drivers a false sense of security, like the 4×4 effect that sees Range Rovers on their roofs every time it snows in Surrey.

Accept it as compensation, which is what I assume it is?

You know what, it feels a bit ‘right on’ and a tiny bit lecturey but I really relate to the actual message. This was evidently a risky advertising line to go down, so fair play to Gillette for giving it a go. It’s highly likely that people feeling uncomfortable with it are having their unconscious biases prodded a bit. It certainly made me sense mine.

80inch trials land rover. I’d like to have a motor mounted onboard of each hub, all controlled by some clever electronic gubbins that allows ‘total’ 4wd. Would be awesome and need its own new class it would be so capable. Could lose weight of engine, gearbox, transfer box, fuel tank, propshafts, diffs, and in trialling unsprung weight is quite advantageous.

Would also make an awesome rock crawler.

How does that work?

There’s quite a lot of space on the back of a Harley, and the small back rest, comfy seat, good weather and nice bit of dead air just behind me meant she could quite easily have a read. Apparently. I was quite impressed to be fair, lol. Also impressed she could doze; first I’d know is a gentle ‘bump’ of lids touching.

the thought of five hours riding pillion chugging along at 50mph in between stops probably counts as a CIA-approved stress position.

Again with the not understanding HDs. My then new wife, when not chatting or watching the world go by, would read a book or doze. She wasn’t uncomfortable. And that was on a screenless heritage softail. We cruised between places at 55-65mph; any faster was uncomfortable; 55mph was ideal for nattering.

I can definitely see the appeal in crossing the US on a Harley – to the non-motorcyclists.

If all you get from motorcycle riding is head down, bum up speed thrills, you’re absolutely right. But there’s more to it than that, imho. But what do I know?

V8ninety – long time owner of a KTM 990 SuperDuke

Did a three week tour two up on a Harley as a honeymoon. Started in SF, went east across Sierra Navadas to Vegas, Death Valley, Grand Canyon, then down and around back to LA and the up the coast highway back to SF. Was epic and bike was faultless. On the ‘back of helmet’ view opinion, couldn’t be more wrong. Open face helmets and out in the open means you don’t just see the scenery, you smell it, feel it, taste it. A truly epic experience that I would heartily recommend. Don’t believe the bollocks about Harleys being unreliable; there’s millions of them over there, and they are so unstressed that they don’t do themselves much harm. Exceptions exist, obviously. RegRdkng the weight/unwieldness of Harleys; evidently written by someone who hasn’t ridden one. The low saddle height and comfy position completely negates the weight. They aren’t a speedy bike, but that’s not what they are for anyway.

I’m actually really worried that there will be a mass choke, loads of MPs will bottle it and she’ll scrape it by about 10 votes.

I suspect this has something to do with why Farmers but BIG tractors regularly…

One of the biggest issues people have with getting their head around EV adoption is that they conflate battery capacity with petrol tank capacity. It’s not the same thing, unless you happen to have large fuel bunkers at home. We have had our Leaf for over a month now. It gets used every day, for school runs (16 miles each way twice a day) commutes (similar) and shopping and general S,D&P use. Not once has it been charged anywhere but at home. Unless you’re use involves driving further than 150ish miles before returning home (I’m sure some people do this, but I suspect it’s a vanishingly small percentage) then this car works well as a family motor. It’s lovely, quiet and relaxing to drive, too (I wish I got to drive it more; partners car). And the ability to preheat on a cold morning, that’s almost worth it on its own. Financially, it’s working out significantly cheaper than the car it replaces, a diesel Skoda Fabia estate. We have another car in the household that can do the longer journeys if need be, but I imagine this will be a couple of times a year or so only.

Also making it shaped like a truck it stupid, it could get 50% more range if it were aero.

Unless of course you are trying to sell to a market that really likes trucks. Then not so stupid (business wise, at least).

We’ve taken the plunge in our household and had a second gen leaf for about a month now. Apart from occasional IT issues with its app, the ownership experience is shaping up to be phenomenal.

I can get just under 30mins and then it becomes too painful and I give up. I reckon I’d o could stop my feet ☹️ no I could get to sun 25mins, but persistent foot pain is a real willpower killer 😖

you hear about cyclists being back on the bike within days of a plate op. How do they do it?

Ill advisedly, and probably with the assistance of potent analgesia, that’s how. Bones and ligaments take 6-8 weeks to heal, even without a surgeon cutting you open, drilling holes in you and assaulting all of the surrounding tissue. I’m surprised that you’re surprised that it still hurts a bit; however I suspect you have a lot more function than if you hadn’t had the op. You’ll get there.

You should always be driving so as you can stop or take reasonable evasive action within the distance you can see; that’s a pretty simple and inarguable concept, surely. If your dipped beams don’t provide you with this ability, either you or your headlights are a bit shit. Absolutely no need for full beam at 30. I suspect those that say they need full beam in a thirty zone are travelling quicker than thirty; you know, because the roads are quiet, because they can see with their bright mains, etc. Also, why is it okay to dazzle a pedestrian when you wouldn’t dazzle a driver? Proper selfish behaviour.

Surely just hold her nose for about 5 minutes. It’ll be kill or cure, but I’d give her good odds for surviving.

Think yourself lucky; I get video suggestions that attempt to portray Jacob Rich Knob in a positive light 😝🤣