That Starmer fella...

This was not fine

referring to someone with ginger hair as ginger? yeah, it is. The issue with "pink haired moron" isn't the use of " pink haired" imo.

in as good a place

quite an assumption.

Skin colour =/= race.

and using hair colour as a descriptor =/= using skin colour as a descriptor.

Of more relevance is that they are an edgelord who doesn’t post/debate in good faith hence advice to ignore them.

The fact that they are also a Tory, the party of divisive culture wars, may or may not be incidental.

an edgelord who doesn’t post/debate in good faith

fair

Instead of using up all your good faith on Tories, why not extend it to Labour centrists instead?

Not everyone who disagrees with you is an edgelord or a troll. It just means they have different opinions on politics.

referring to someone with ginger hair as ginger?

That wasn't my point.

You wrote:

am ginger, bullied relentlessly for 10+ years at school for it; this is fine.

Newsflash: Being bullied for 10+years is not fine.

quite an assumption.

Given you said that 10+ years of bullying was "fine". I presumed you'd be in a good place compared to people who have found it not to be fine.

I hope you are getting the support you need if that's not (as I would expect) the case.

and using hair colour as a descriptor =/= using skin colour as a descriptor.

... =/= body shape as a descriptor.

I'm not sure what your point brings to the discussion now though?

Using any personal descriptor as a negative isn't necessary when critiquing a politicians stance on a matter. In a sense it weakens the argument through a failure to focus on the substance.

Agreed.

However when its a consistent mien including on non-political topics then the edgelord/troll description feels accurate

Being bullied for 10+years is not fine.

wasn't saying it was, oddly enough. was saying the use of hair colour as a descriptor was fine.

.. =/= body shape as a descriptor

almost like different things are different

personal descriptor as a negative isn't necessary

agreed, the difference being I didn't see the negative in the use of the word "ginger".

think we're largely in agreement tbh, just getting wires crossed

Could be.

Personally I find hurricane run's occasionally confronting posts quite bracing. I don't want an echo chamber.

This is an echo chamber?

Good grief

Good grief.

ood reif...

Kood keif

good kieth

1 Attachment

If poor old Patrick Hosking had only waited a day or so, the Times wouldn’t have had to quietly take his article down.

In retrospect, even the graph he provided shows the rate beginning a downward turn on the day of the investment summit. How embarrassing.

1 Attachment

Wait what’s happened?

Kier used to be ginger?

Also can't help note that Streeting's stance on puberty blockers for kids ('Not enough research! Ban it!') is in stark contrast to his stance on giving weight loss drugs to the poor ('Absolutely zero research! It's a great idea!')

Not that it's surprising, of course, because Streeting is a vile little goblin who functions mostly on a diet of malice, but nonetheless....

I don't want an echo chamber.

I think you may be on the wrong forum.

All this Taylor Swift stuff is really showing up a desperation in the press to rustle up a scandal. Gigs in other countries had been cancelled because of terrorist threats and we're supposed to be outraged that she got a police escort. Not convinced it's getting much traction though.

Wasn't this the announcement of a trial though? Despite how it may have been presented as a nationwide solution it is limited five year trial in an area of Manchester.

I'm not sure if it's a plan that's going to work but some of the outrage around it seems a little manufactured. Obesity is a significant problem for the country and trialling a possible solution such as this seems sensible.

Saying that, I think they did go too heavy on the return to work element rather than the health benefit.

Saying that, I think they did go too heavy on the return to work element rather than the health benefit.

Yep, pretty much any positive framing flies straight over their heads and they immediately jump to punching down.

How hard is it to say “this is a potentially life-changing treatment for many struggling with serious health issues and can help people live fuller and longer lives”?

Also why do they single out unemployed people? If this is helpful they should invest in a the production of a generic drug and offer it through the NHS to everyone who would benefit.

Without trying to sound too flippant — because that's who they are. New technology like this is a gift, both politically and otherwise. Their games have made them blind to what real progress is.

If this is helpful they should invest in a the production of a generic drug and offer it through the NHS to everyone who would benefit.

It seems they are planning to roll it out to the NHS at a far larger scale than this "back to work" trial but that hasn't generated much in the way of headlines

https://www.nice.org.uk/news/articles/consultation-on-nhs-england-proposals-for-a-phased-launch-of-obesity-injection

Actually, looking a bit deeper it seems that this specific study in Manchester is looking at the work implications of weight loss drugs and obesity.

There are other things going on generally but this Manchester trial is the one that is being pushed even though it is at a much smaller scale.

That sounds pretty good, the should also add that this will probably reduce the demands on the NHS if people are healthier overall. Currently they frame it that a limited rollout is necessary to not overwhelm the NHS.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/16/demand-obesity-drugs-risks-overwhelming-nhs-doctors-letter-wes-streeting