gdp's Comments

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Caroline ffiske: How non-crime hate incidents came into force. And why they should be reformed - or

Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:23:01 +0000

I appreciate the response, and will response to some of the points you raise. In the context of criminal sanctions ‘hate’ is only used *if* it is part of the motivation for a crime. If I beat the crap out of somebody *because* they spilt my beer, that is not a crime. if I beat the crap out of someone *because* they are black then that is a hate crime. The criminal sanction received for the latter will be greater than for the former scenario. This is because society, through it representative democracy, has decreed that such motivations warrant greater sanction. For this reason, the characteristics are not ‘arbitrary; except in the sense that they are the ones our legislature has chosen. There is a political debate to be had as to what, if any, motivations warrant greater criminal sanction. I’m not sure which constituency Millwall falls in, but their MP could make the case… My list of offenders was not in priority order - perhaps it did reflect unconscious bias. You seem to accept that there is a case for motivational dependent sanction, if hate is not the right term, what would you call it?

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Caroline ffiske: How non-crime hate incidents came into force. And why they should be reformed - or

Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:07:36 +0000

If I have understood this article correctly then at its heart is what is what role should the state play, if any, in policing (in its widest terms) ‘hate’. At some point a threshold is crossed and that expression becomes part of the criminal justice system. that is what define criminal and criminal hate. We need to understand where that boundary is and why. The starting point that I am making is that, as a matter of law, hate by itself is not a crime. Hate can be an aggravating event to a a crime, but holding a hateful view just isn’t a crime. So, as it stands, there are no criminal sanctions that the state can impose for voicing a specific viewpoint (subject to inciting to violence). The trickier questions are, to what extent should the criminal justice seek to keep tabs on those whose ‘hateful’ expression may be a prelude to their (violent) criminal action and secondly, which characteristics, if any, should be basis of additional criminal sanctions. It seems to me, that the former question is largely a matter of practicalities. The latter is a question of democratic will. I would posit that the majority in this country are of the view that a crime motivated by race should command greater greater sanction, are less sure whether gender should, and are mostly very confused about transgender issues.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Caroline ffiske: How non-crime hate incidents came into force. And why they should be reformed - or

Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:25:49 +0000

Fair question. In of itself, it does not, but it *might* be a starting point. As with mort political debates, there is a great deal of nuance and this just seems to get lost in out current binary political climate. With the very real threats of violence in the name of seemingly endless causes, there is a trade off between monitoring and protection. How often have we heard “XYZ and known to authorities”. The debate we need to have is how do we find an acceptable compromise. What we get is the right gagging for a culture war.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Garvan Walshe: We can be sure that those who have been vaccinated won’t die of Covid. So the case

Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:38:23 +0000

You make an interesting point. The Oxford group have recently published the full analysis of their early trials. A preprint can be found here. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_... It does seem that, very encouragingly, that a single shot does prevent deaths/hosptial admissions (at leat to very significant degree). However, I was talking to Professor at a major London teaching hospital yesterday and the point he made was that the majority of their patients now were in their 20’s - 40s. They are not dying and don’t need the ICU, but they do need to be in hospital. The data are emerging by the day, but I do think the idea that we have ‘saved granny’ so, thank you very much now sod off, is something that need very careful consideration. Because, as with seemingly all debates in the UK, Covid has polarised into tribes, I am pessimistic that such a debate will be had.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Garvan Walshe: We can be sure that those who have been vaccinated won’t die of Covid. So the case

Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:29:02 +0000

As I tend to do, I have been doing some research. It turns out the JebStu is actually at 32 yr old woman called Brenda who live alone in her apartment in a rough neighbourhood of Boise, Idaho. because she weighs about 600 lbs she can’t get out much. That is why she craves so much attention and why she looks to ConHome to get it. She is delighted that her evidence free conspirational posts get so much feedback. It validates her very existence Brenda stumbled on ConHome when she asked “Alexa - please find be a Q-Anon blog” Because of Brenda’s speech impediment, Alexa mistook Q_anon for ConHome - and here she is. For those of you who are confused by this post, can I just point out is based on the same level of truth and research as JebStu’s (i.e Brenda’s) posts.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Garvan Walshe: We can be sure that those who have been vaccinated won’t die of Covid. So the case

Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:28:49 +0000

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Caroline ffiske: How non-crime hate incidents came into force. And why they should be reformed - or

Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:28:05 +0000

This article (deliberately?) fudges and avoids a few issues. There is no such thing as a hate crime per se. A ‘hate crime’ is committed when a criminal act is committed and the person committed it is motivated by ‘hate’ (against defined characteristics - this excludes supporting the wrong footaball team). The motivation (mens rea) has of course been a central requirement of criminal law for centuries. Hate is an agggreavting element, not the crime itself. Second, it has long been accepted that there are limits to free speech, in the context of this article, stopping at inciting violence. The yearning of a “Miltonian lost paradise of free speech” is just romantic idealism that ignores the world we live in today. That leads to the third point. The boundary between words an actions. In recent years we have seen acts of violence and deaths perpetrated by the far-right, islamists, anti-gay activists, animal rights activists, sectarianism and others. These didn’t just come out of the blue. The individuals involved gave voice to their perspectives. If the police are not going to keep a record of those that speak before they act, how are they going to protect us?

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Protecting free speech. University legislation will help. But ministers need to speak out more.

Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:07:38 +0000

Be careful what you wish for...!

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Protecting free speech. University legislation will help. But ministers need to speak out more.

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:52:57 +0000

Just wondering how many generations it takes for this DNA to become ‘native’. So for example who the “native” Americans? Is it restricted to the pre-white settlers? What about the Irish immigrants of the 19th century? Can we call the dependents of the Huguenots English yet/ What about the jews that fled Europe in the mid-20th century. Can they ever be native english? Who decides who gets to be a native and who decides what benefits that accrues?

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Protecting free speech. University legislation will help. But ministers need to speak out more.

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:43:27 +0000

You have it. Article 10 of the Humnan Rights Act enshrines, in UK law, your freedom of speach.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Ryan Bourne: The lifting of lockdown. Yes to prudence but no to pessimism. The projections of these

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:54:45 +0000

As jock12 notes above the science behind the pandemic ranges from the very 'hard' (e..g sequence analysis) to the very 'soft' (human behaviour). I (don’t think) much of it as mathematically chaotic though. Take mutations. They occur randomly, but with known rates. We know that new variants will emerge from selective pressure, for example, a single drug will result in escape mutants. Given enough time this will happen. There are the occasional ‘jumps’. The best example is of course zoonosis, where a virus goes from one species to the next in an unpredicted and (possibly) unpredictable way. It is chaotic, but not in the mathematical way. As for the government. Utter shambles from Day 1. It it the public sector in the shape of academic research and the NHS that is going to win the day (hopefully)*. I sense that is going to be the most almighty stink when the degree of cronyism with favouring their Ministers to their mates to the time of £Ms comes into the public domain. * I do of course acknowledge the value of the private sector Pharma Co.s too.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Protecting free speech. University legislation will help. But ministers need to speak out more.

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:42:29 +0000

There is no culture war except for the one that the right wing keep seeking. I am seriously beginning to wonder if this is some sort of deliberate policy founded in the response to Brexit. Unfortunately, Brexit did descend into a culture war of sorts, with people cast in a binary way as either “remainers’ or ‘leavers’. The net result was that sensible discussion and analysis was discarded in exchange for unquestioning supporting your tribe. Is the purpose of constantly banging on about the culture wars an attempt to force us all into two tribes( the woke and the non-woke) with the intention that the Tory tribe is the biggest? I certainly see little thoughtful analysis from those on the right. Darren Grimes is no Socrates. It was clearly Trump’s approach. The libertarian right is not having a “good pandemic”. As the death toll rise so this rhetoric is ramping up. Surely the grossly incompetent Williamson has more pressing issues to deal with? By the way, appointing somebody who will tell you what free speech is, or is not, is something of an oxymoron.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Ryan Bourne: The lifting of lockdown. Yes to prudence but no to pessimism. The projections of these

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:11:32 +0000

The difference is chaos. Weather is chaotic, pandemics aren’t. However, this Government’s response to a non-chaotic phenomenon has been - chaotic.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Ryan Bourne: The lifting of lockdown. Yes to prudence but no to pessimism. The projections of these

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:05:18 +0000

It is worth pointing out that both papers are giving number of deaths since the start of the year. So far this year about 40,000 of those deaths have already occurred and we are still seeing thousands more die each week. As far as the uncertainties in the modelling, the two that give me most concern are the extent to which a single shot gives protection against death/serious disease and the R rate for the Kent variant. In truth, the data on a single shot are very sparse. I think it is realistic to assume that maximum protection for any most individuals will require the second shot. Bear in mind there are 15 million people, about 25% of the UK population deemed to be vulnerable to dying from Covid if infected. The consequences on releasing NPIs is going to be played out in this population. A better understanding go the benefits of a single shot is perhaps the single most important piece of data that we need in the UK. Given that both papers were written in early Jan/late December , the figures used were guesstimates. All of you armchair epidemiologist should know by now that “herd immunity’ is linked to the transmissibility of the virus. This us why the higher R0 for the Kent strain means that unless we protect more people via vaccination, more will die. Denying reality is not a good basis for public policy.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Ryan Bourne: The lifting of lockdown. Yes to prudence but no to pessimism. The projections of these

Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:49:10 +0000

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : The relaxation of lockdown. Coming soon. Usual terms and conditions apply.

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:39:58 +0000

I think it very likely that some private businesses will make it a condition of their customers that they can show that they have been vaccinated. At some point, some business are going to have to consider if they are opening themselves up to being sues for not showing a sufficient duty of care if they do not. I’m thinking cruise operators as one obvious example, but theatres and other inside venues may also go this route. One could of course introduce, indirect enforcement by limiting your offering to those demographics where vaccination rates are high. Saga cruise anyone?

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : The relaxation of lockdown. Coming soon. Usual terms and conditions apply.

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:15:32 +0000

You might want to point out rather gently to your ‘undergraduate’ that; Ferguson’s oft quoted report was an adaptation of his decades old work on ‘flu (you know that virus that causes seasonal, respiratory infections) 2. He is nowhere near a smart as you (and perhaps they) think they are. Why don’t you ask your undergraduate why Ferguson got his numbers so wrong and so grossly underestimated the deaths from Covid-19. Was is a failure of theory, policy or implementation?

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : The relaxation of lockdown. Coming soon. Usual terms and conditions apply.

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:43:51 +0000

I don't know anybody who likes lockdown. I think the reasons was all hate them are as diverse as the population. Obvioiusly if you throw money worries into the mix it isnt going to help, but there is so much besides.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : The relaxation of lockdown. Coming soon. Usual terms and conditions apply.

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:00:01 +0000

No. There is a strong correaltion between wealth and Covid incidence/prevalence and deaths. Same as it ever was.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : The relaxation of lockdown. Coming soon. Usual terms and conditions apply.

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:14:07 +0000

It takes a very special kind of stupidity not to learn from previous errors. When, oh when, will the likes of Baker and Harper and their little gang realise that it not either/or. We have one of the worst death rates in the world and one of the worst economic hits - why? Because Johnson has lacked the courage (and insight?) to lockdown hard, quickly and came out of lockdown too soon (at least in the North and Midlands) This has just prolonged each and every agony. Had he not fallen for the siren voices promoting this false dichotomy, fewer people would have died AND we would be out of this mess more quickly. I don’t know what date makes sense (for all I know it may be before the CRG are demanding) but what I do know is that not shouldn’t be based on some arbitrary date determined by a small libertarian head banger cabal. If we release the lockdown too early, then there will be lockdown 4.