Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Guest sibon]

47 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Why would he not mean it literally ? Sibon takes similar views as regards parents being banned from photographing their kids at school events.

These people are very concerned about virtue signalling "look I care about people more than everyone else", and, on the other hand, do not think the "cost" is significant, Buckley vis pupils being forced to wear masks, and Sibon vis parents being banned from photographing their kids.

It is entirely plausible that Buckley (and Sibon) meant it literally.

 

 

As you seem intent upon dragging me back into this rather dull debate, I have a question for you. 
 

How many abused kids is acceptable in order for you to photograph mini Justin at sports day?

 

I’ve asked before, but you were uncharacteristically coy.

[Anna B]

IMO

Compared to Ukraine our country is very good.

Compared to some of the developing world, our country is good.

Compared to Scandinavian countries our country is not so good.

Compared to what it was, it is slipping very fast down hill.

[RJRB]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Why would he not mean it literally ? Sibon takes similar views as regards parents being banned from photographing their kids at school events.

These people are very concerned about virtue signalling "look I care about people more than everyone else", and, on the other hand, do not think the "cost" is significant, Buckley vis pupils being forced to wear masks, and Sibon vis parents being banned from photographing their kids.

It is entirely plausible that Buckley (and Sibon) meant it literally.

 

I'm not sure I said I was downtrodden", but it is undeniable that if (effectively) positive discrimination is applied to many groups then the others are suffering the opposite.

As I said you use the same method of over emphasis to make a point.

No one is banning any parent from photographing their kids.

Positive discrimination comes in many forms and frequently to benefit a minority group.

This may require a degree of empathy for those less fortunate than ourselves.Even a degree of inconvenience.

[trastrick]

Just now, RJRB said:

As I said you use the same method of over emphasis to make a point.

No one is banning any parent from photographing their kids.

Positive discrimination comes in many forms and frequently to benefit a minority group.

This may require a degree of empathy for those less fortunate than ourselves.Even a degree of inconvenience.

With such attitudes, it will be a long time before people see minorities as "equals".

 

"The prejudice of low expectations"!

[Tyke02]

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I spent a bit of time trying to find out how many people died in domestic electrocutions but the data was not clear but it appeared to be lower than 10 a year, and that included private properties etc.

I agree with you that fires caused by electrical faults are probably more significant but even trying to split out private v rented was getting too complicated, plus the stats did not discriminate between faults in the house wiring and faults in devices (esp extensions and splitters....).

I still think 10 deaths, or less, prevented by this legislation is probably not that far out.

The point is that if £250 million a year was spent on the NHS it would save a hell of a lot more than 10 lives.

As luck would have it a consultation was launched yesterday into extending a similar 5 year EICR regime into social housing (and also owner occupied flats in social housing blocks).  There is information on the proposals and the justifying rationale here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/electrical-safety-in-social-housing-consultation-and-call-for-evidence/consultation-and-call-for-evidence-on-electrical-safety-in-the-social-rented-sector#call-for-evidence-mandatory-checks-on-electrical-installations-for-leasehold-properties-within-social-housing-blocks-at-least-every-five-years

 

Now's your chance to put forward your case and try to bring some decision makers round to your point of view.  Let us know how you get on.

[RJRB]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

With such attitudes, it will be a long time before people see minorities as "equals".

 

"The prejudice of low expectations"!

I have never had such a problem understanding someone from Heeley.

[Chekhov]

7 hours ago, sibon said:

As you seem intent upon dragging me back into this rather dull debate, I have a question for you. 

How many abused kids is acceptable in order for you to photograph mini Justin at sports day?

I’ve asked before, but you were uncharacteristically coy.

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine, which you never do. Though you have changed your tune anyway, I thought you said it was about abused partners (usually women) not being found. Why should a parent desperate to find his (or her) kids be any more likely to abuse them than any other parent ?

 

for you to photograph mini Justin at sports day?

 

And it isn't just me anyway, there are millions of parents and grandparents who want to take pics of their kids at school events, you, know, just like they have done for decades before.

But the tone of your answer very much proves me right anyway, you do not think it significant that parents and grandparents are banned from photographing their kids :

 

These people are very concerned about virtue signalling "look I care about people more than everyone else", and, on the other hand, do not think the "cost" is significant, Buckley vis pupils being forced to wear masks, and Sibon vis parents being banned from photographing their kids.

It is entirely plausible that Buckley (and Sibon) meant it literally.

[Guest sibon]

26 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine, which you never do. Though you have changed your tune anyway, I thought you said it was about abused partners (usually women) not being found. Why should a parent desperate to find his (or her) kids be any more likely to abuse them than any other parent ?

 

for you to photograph mini Justin at sports day?

You are, of course, incorrect. No surprise there. My original post on the subject is here. You could have looked it up yourself though, rather than making false accusations.

 

Taking photos of  school events has been heavily restricted for years, by the way. You aren’t the first parent in the world, or the only one. You’re not even the most important one.

 

Here is what I said a few weeks ago:

On 25/05/2022 at 21:49, sibon said:

This sort of thing is tricky. Everyone wants pictures of their kids. Memories are important.

 

Trouble is that some kids could be endangered by careless sharing of photos.  Child protection trumps making memories, I'm afraid, so the school is probably right.

 

That said, the school will know if they have kids who need protecting. They could easily take photos, leave out any kids they need to and make the pics available to the parents via social media. 

 

Problem solved.

 

I doubt that Checkov will see it that way.

Now, that question.

 

How many abused kids would you accept as the price for being allowed to photograph mini Justin’s school sports day?

Edited June 9, 2022 by sibon

[Chekhov]

25 minutes ago, sibon said:

You are, of course, incorrect. No surprise there. My original post on the subject is here. You could have looked it up yourself though, rather than making false accusations.

Your original post does not contradict me at all, quite plainly you do NOT think it important parents and grandparents get a chance to photograph their kids at school.

[Chekhov]

36 minutes ago, sibon said:

Taking photos of  school events has been heavily restricted for years, by the way.

But they should not have been should they ? There is no law about it, just disproportionate BS :

 

The Guardian :

Schools often invoke the Data Protection Act 1998, or the Children Act 2004 as the reason for photography bans. "But there is nothing in the Children Act that says 'Thou shalt not photograph children'," says Eleanor Coner, information officer at the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. The Information Commissioner's Office has taken to putting out bi-annual statements refuting the myth that the Data Protection Act prohibits photography. "We call it the 'data protection duckout'," says David Smith, director of data protection at the Information Commissioner's Office. "If there is something people don't want to do, but they can't explain it easily, they say it's because of the Data Protection Act."

In fact, photography bans cannot be traced to any single event or law. Rather, it seems that there was a shift from the early 2000s, when similar regulations diffused throughout schools and sports organisations.

 

It is not the child abuser but the loving parent who suffers from these rules. "You miss out on the milestones in your child's life," says Sue Rice. "It is a shame because they are small for such a short time."

 

36 minutes ago, sibon said:

How many abused kids would you accept as the price for being allowed to photograph mini Justin’s school sports day?

As I have said I think a more plausible question would be how many partners trying to hide away from other partners do you think could be compromised in order to let millions of parents photograph their kids at school. And I will answer after you answer one of the many questions I have asked you and never received a reply :

 

What is more serious, and deserving of more police time and a more serious punishment, being slapped on the arse, or punched in the face ?

Edited June 9, 2022 by Chekhov