More Attacks On Freedom Of Speech
News1 min ago
Boris's Reshuffle
40 Answers
One "change" that probably escaped everyone was the the return of The Minister on Leave, Suella Braverman, who was on paid leave because the Govt brought in an Act of Parliament solely for her.
https:/
Her mate Boris didn't want her to resign, so they created the office of Minister on Leave. And now she's back! Nepotism in the extreme, I say!
https:/
Her mate Boris didn't want her to resign, so they created the office of Minister on Leave. And now she's back! Nepotism in the extreme, I say!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Is that too many New Judge?//
Yes. One per woman is the only way to reduce the global population.
//( how many did you have ? - :]//
I don't discuss personal details on AB (or anywhere else). But however many I have, I'm not complaining about the effect human activity is allegedly having on the planet and I'm not part of a government seeking to reduce the prosperity of this country by introducing ridiculous measures to mitigate the effects of those activities.
If human activity is causing so much damage the easiest way to see a reduction in that damage is to reduce the number of humans. But that's a bit of an "elephant in the room" I imagine.
Yes. One per woman is the only way to reduce the global population.
//( how many did you have ? - :]//
I don't discuss personal details on AB (or anywhere else). But however many I have, I'm not complaining about the effect human activity is allegedly having on the planet and I'm not part of a government seeking to reduce the prosperity of this country by introducing ridiculous measures to mitigate the effects of those activities.
If human activity is causing so much damage the easiest way to see a reduction in that damage is to reduce the number of humans. But that's a bit of an "elephant in the room" I imagine.
NJ : " There needs to be a concerted effort to reduce the population. Not the rate of growth, the actual numbers."
How can the actual numbers of population be reduced other than by controlling the rate of growth ? (Are you suggesting an extermination project ?)
NJ: "If human activity is causing so much damage the easiest way to see a reduction in that damage is to reduce the number of humans."
No, the easiest way is to dramatically reduce the damaging activity humans are perpetrating.
NJ: "But that's a bit of an "elephant in the room" I imagine."
I suspect the elephant in the room is some peoples' standard of living and their determination it will conveniently remain at that level.
How can the actual numbers of population be reduced other than by controlling the rate of growth ? (Are you suggesting an extermination project ?)
NJ: "If human activity is causing so much damage the easiest way to see a reduction in that damage is to reduce the number of humans."
No, the easiest way is to dramatically reduce the damaging activity humans are perpetrating.
NJ: "But that's a bit of an "elephant in the room" I imagine."
I suspect the elephant in the room is some peoples' standard of living and their determination it will conveniently remain at that level.
The Explanatory Notes with the Act explain why the legislation was introduced.
https:/
https:/
bobbinwales, I did think that maybe gulliver had applied to be a candidate for the tory party and they turned him down and that is why he has such a hatred for Boris and the tories. He has been asked many times which party he would like to see in power yet he never answers so is he really a closet tory. In fact he starts many threads on here but rarely answers questions on them. Usually it's just a bit of abuse of some type that comes back.
//How can the actual numbers of population be reduced other than by controlling the rate of growth ? (Are you suggesting an extermination project ?)//
No I’m not suggesting that. It would have been better is if I had said not **just** the rate of growth. It is no use reducing the rate of growth from (say) 5% to 4% (which would be hailed as a “reduction in the population”. The growth needs to be negative so as to reduce the absolute number.
//No, the easiest way is to dramatically reduce the damaging activity humans are perpetrating.//
But it very clearly isn’t. Governments (and pressure groups) have been banging on for years about reducing harmful emissions. Despite the criticism levelled against it, this country has done more than most to do so. It has all but eliminated the mass burning of coal for power production (although a couple of plants were brought on line a fortnight ago because the wind wasn’t blowing hard enough); it has covered stacks of the offshore views with wind turbines; it has (ludicrously) allowed one of the largest power stations in the country to burn imported, freshly felled wood (labelled as “sustainable”). The cost oft this has been enormous and it is now beginning to manifest itself in massive price hikes for electricity – the source of power which, we are told, will largely replace much cheaper gas. Now it gets tricky. People must be persuaded to drive electric cars when there is little infrastructure to support them and they are inadequate and too costly for many people anyway. They must also be persuaded to spend £thousands by ripping out their perfectly adequate and efficient gas boilers and replacing them with an inadequate and inefficient pumping system.
Far easier to just have fewer children.
No I’m not suggesting that. It would have been better is if I had said not **just** the rate of growth. It is no use reducing the rate of growth from (say) 5% to 4% (which would be hailed as a “reduction in the population”. The growth needs to be negative so as to reduce the absolute number.
//No, the easiest way is to dramatically reduce the damaging activity humans are perpetrating.//
But it very clearly isn’t. Governments (and pressure groups) have been banging on for years about reducing harmful emissions. Despite the criticism levelled against it, this country has done more than most to do so. It has all but eliminated the mass burning of coal for power production (although a couple of plants were brought on line a fortnight ago because the wind wasn’t blowing hard enough); it has covered stacks of the offshore views with wind turbines; it has (ludicrously) allowed one of the largest power stations in the country to burn imported, freshly felled wood (labelled as “sustainable”). The cost oft this has been enormous and it is now beginning to manifest itself in massive price hikes for electricity – the source of power which, we are told, will largely replace much cheaper gas. Now it gets tricky. People must be persuaded to drive electric cars when there is little infrastructure to support them and they are inadequate and too costly for many people anyway. They must also be persuaded to spend £thousands by ripping out their perfectly adequate and efficient gas boilers and replacing them with an inadequate and inefficient pumping system.
Far easier to just have fewer children.
NJ,
"banging on for years about reducing harmful emissions" are only words, pressure groups have no power and governments have power and that is confined within their own boundaries, but the human activity problem is supranational.
If you are suggesting negative population growth, meaning having more deaths than births then I agree that is a useful idea,but that has enormous social implications after a period of time, but also enormous financial ramifications in our global financial setup.(as the rate of growth of GDP is crucial to that system's survival)
And this rate of economic growth is the key point as it has fueled population growth AND environmental degradation.( encompassing alleged human caused climate change due to the gases their economic activities emitted)
It would have been clearer if I had said "one way is to dramatically reduce the damaging activity humans are perpetrating".
Unfortunately, I think neither of our suggestions have any hope of being implemented .
"banging on for years about reducing harmful emissions" are only words, pressure groups have no power and governments have power and that is confined within their own boundaries, but the human activity problem is supranational.
If you are suggesting negative population growth, meaning having more deaths than births then I agree that is a useful idea,but that has enormous social implications after a period of time, but also enormous financial ramifications in our global financial setup.(as the rate of growth of GDP is crucial to that system's survival)
And this rate of economic growth is the key point as it has fueled population growth AND environmental degradation.( encompassing alleged human caused climate change due to the gases their economic activities emitted)
It would have been clearer if I had said "one way is to dramatically reduce the damaging activity humans are perpetrating".
Unfortunately, I think neither of our suggestions have any hope of being implemented .
I’ll take over NJ’s tin hat.
I reject every CV of 30 something women who don’t already have children.
We’ve been burned too many times of spending thousands in training women who then become
pregnant and disappear for a year resulting in people having to cover work.
I was subjected to a grievance because a rise was given to a guy who was covering work for somebody on mat leave because she felt it was unfair he got a rise even though she wasn’t even at work and he was covering her job.
It’s totally illlegal due to the (non) Equality Act, but I really couldn’t care less.
I reject every CV of 30 something women who don’t already have children.
We’ve been burned too many times of spending thousands in training women who then become
pregnant and disappear for a year resulting in people having to cover work.
I was subjected to a grievance because a rise was given to a guy who was covering work for somebody on mat leave because she felt it was unfair he got a rise even though she wasn’t even at work and he was covering her job.
It’s totally illlegal due to the (non) Equality Act, but I really couldn’t care less.
//(as the rate of growth of GDP is crucial to that system's survival)//
Then the world needs to rethink its economic model. Whether GDP growth drives population growth or vice versa is immaterial. The Earth cannot sustain limitless numbers of human beings. Some would argue (me among them) that the practical limit of the human population has already been reached now. The idea that the number of humans must increase indefinitely in order to sustain that indefinitely increasing number is the logic of the madhouse. You might just as well say that cats must be encourage to have more kittens because many of them end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal (because cats are having too many kittens).
Then the world needs to rethink its economic model. Whether GDP growth drives population growth or vice versa is immaterial. The Earth cannot sustain limitless numbers of human beings. Some would argue (me among them) that the practical limit of the human population has already been reached now. The idea that the number of humans must increase indefinitely in order to sustain that indefinitely increasing number is the logic of the madhouse. You might just as well say that cats must be encourage to have more kittens because many of them end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal (because cats are having too many kittens).
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
