TheCat

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Angelina Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > If the OP can find details of similar crimes > > against men / women we can then compare the > > reporting of them and understand why they think > > there is a disparity > > This is the main flaw with the OP, a lack of > context. > > One of the reasons the SE case received such a (as > the OP put it) 'fanfare' in the news, was not just > the nature of the crime but also who carried it > out, namely a serving Met police officer, the very > people who are supposed to be protecting us. For > that reason alone it was always going to create > more attention, so I'm not sure why the need to > question it... Um...once again...please read the OP...where the specific example given was not the murder of Sarah Everard. Which I completely agree warrants a more involved public discussion for a multitude of reasons.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd say the crimes against women are different in > nature and are reported differently. > > It's less often that men are sexually assaulted/ > raped/ randomly physically attacked by a > stranger. > > If the OP can find details of similar crimes > against men / women we can then compare the > reporting of them and understand why they think > there is a disparity First of all. Thank-you for the measured, and non-aggressive post. It makes a nice change of pace. I totally agree that 'crimes' against men and women are often differentially motivated. And that is perhaps a slightly separate issue to explore, as distinct from the OP. But to your point on finding details of similar crimes, I believe the OP did specifically cite examples of 3 of the exact same crime....3 murders...all reported (and all 'new' news on that day) in the news on the same day recently, with a stark difference in coverage on that occasion (For clarity, the SE murder was NOT one of the murders being referred to on that day, as the OP clearly states). As an aside...I think it was well covered earlier in this thread (by other posters) that men are much more likely to be attacked/murdered by a stranger than women; and that the lions share of physical attacks on women were by people known to them. Is that perhaps the answer to the whole question? that is it indeed the rarity of a women being randomly murdered in the street that makes it more newsworthy than more regular random male murders? (for the sake of clarity to the boarder audience, I am specifically talking about murders here, not street harassment or intimidation, which are also of significant concern, and I in no way wish to minimise or dimisss)

Can recommend the Olde Bell in Hurley Great pub, with great food...but is a bit more than a posh pub as has extensive gardens, a number of different private annexes (i.e. like a barn) for pvt events too. Younger kids can run around in gardens and explore the various nooks and crannies, and also, whole family can enjoy a pre-or post lunch walk along the Thames into Marlow fairly easily Accommodation ranges from fancy large rooms in the original pub building to more functional rooms in a new annexe across the road. Not sure how pricey they are these days as been a couple of years since we went. Plenty of car parking, but those without a car might need a cab from Marlow or Maidenhead stations. https://www.theoldebell.co.uk/about-us/explore-the-olde-bell/

The original post was made last Sunday, a good 3-4 days before the further harrowing details of Sarah Everard's kidnapping and murder starting hitting the headlines. The genuine question was also not asking whether women suffer at the hands of evil men like Wayne Couzens. It was specifically asking about media coverage in light of a specific news bulletin. And to those seeking to extrapolate my original comment, and wilfully misrepresent it as a means of branding me as uncaring, misogynistic or provocative - I say it is you with the agenda here, not I.

Can you drive an HGV?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be clear, my post was referring to the dubious > OP ! > And yes, the court hearing was harrowing. > > > Jules-and-Boo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What is did to her is unimaginable. He tricked > her > > first of all and handcuffed her. She had no > chance > > to defend herself at all. > > > > The impact statements of her family are > > heartbreaking. > > > > Of course men matter, but it?s a different > story > > for women. > > Sarah was just walking home. You know what. You are disgusting person. How dare you post that report of Sarah Everard death and use it as leverage to uggest I don't care about this sort of thing. I actually started reading the accounts this morning, and couldn't finish them it was so upsetting and disgusting. And here you are, acting all high and mighty becuase I expressed a concern for the coverage of men's deaths in the media. How you get from there to here I've no idea. You should be ashamed of yourself.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, that is quite inaccurate. > > Almost half (46%) of female homicides are domestic > violence related. > > In year ending March 2020, 154 male homicides were > perpetrated by a stranger, plus another 29 where > no suspect has been charged. > > There was a total of 188 murders of females in the > same period. > > If you are male, you are more likely to be > murdered by someone you have never met, not the > other way round. > > https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit > y/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwal > es/yearendingmarch2020 Those statistics must be the work of 'provocative bastards' with an agenda. Anyone with any objectivity can see that. The whole tone of the statistics are petty. By simply mentioning the facts, it must mean one doesnt care about women being killed.

Sigh (again)....why do you always make things into a fight. It's not about men versus women. You're the one making it as such. Again, it's not one or the other... " I beg you - stop pretending that men vs women in terms of deaths, violence or abuse is even stevens" I've not suggested anything of the sort. you're projecting. I simply made a factual comment abou the differing coverage in one episode of the news...and you've extrapolated with your own prejudice to try to paint me as some gollem. Yes I like to discuss contentious issues and hear what other people think. If that's too 'provocative' for you...then don't comment on the thread....

Yes the subject is contentious. Should we only allow rather dull threads which everyone already agrees on? But why do you (and KK on this occasion) always have to make thread so antagonistic and personal. Try actually discussing the issue, instead of just rubbishing any view that's different to your own. I don't have a case or agenda. I asked a question. Oh and cliches are cliches for a reason. And that one was very appropriate.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you will not listen and will argue > to the last over something that is so strikingly > obvious to anyone with objectivity. Pot. Kettle.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ Men going ?but men get attacked too? have > zero clue Does expressing concern for men's deaths in anyway lessen concern for women's deaths or violence against them?'Concern'is not mutually exclusive.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ? Men have no idea how lucky they are compared to > women when it comes to casual safety? > > My point exactly. > > TheCat - why should anyone be concerned with the > abduction, assault, rape, murder, subsequent > dismemberment, then hiding of the chopped-up body > of a woman who was simply walking home from a > social evening with her friends. > I think you?re an intentionally provocative > bastard. > It?s not clever. Sigh...what a ridiculous, hyperbolic and petty. response.

The death of Sarah Everard prompted a wave of attention on the safety of women. The death of Sabina Nessa has rightfully gained plenty of attention, and reminded us of the dangers that women face. But.... On the day the Nessa death was reported I was watching BBC London news, where it lead the bulletin, with a number of different reports covering various aspects. Then 15 mins later, there was a passing mention (in a list of 'quick' news items) of two (totally separate from each other) young men who were murdered in London on the same day The contrast of the coverage was stark. Why no 'fanfare' for these deaths? Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be made a big deal of, but why is that the media trumpets stats like '180 women were killed by men in the past 12 months' (180 too many of course) but men are killed at roughly double the rate.... So the question is, when men die at roughly double the rate of women, does male on female crime receive a disproportionate level of coverage in that context? Am I missing something?

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The UK haulage industry was going downhill before > EU drivers rocked up, like fruit picking it's an > industry that simply doesn't appeal to Brits and > what they're prepared to do workwise, e.g. long > hours, often sleeping in laybys, no washing/toilet > facilities etc. The Gov's claim that EU lorry > drivers undercut Brits is disingenuous to say the > least... Haven't you just contradicted yourself? You say brits aren't prepared to accept the conditions of the job, but EU drivers do...isn't that the very definition of 'undercutting'?

How 'shocking' that you take an opportunity to have a dig even though this hasn't been a discussion you've been a part of....

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But the UK's reliance on Nat gas peak load > style > > generation (as a result of closure of base load > > and replacement with intermittent renewable > > capacity) means that the whole system is > > vulnerable to Nat gas price rises. The cost of > Nat > > gas electricity generation is also far more > > sensitive to the price of gas, than coal fired > > generation is to the cost of coal, or nuclear > to > > the cost of U308. So the increases in the cost > of > > coal and uranium we've seen recently would not > > flow through to the cost of generation in the > same > > way as they have for Nat gas...we have low > > proportion of coal or nuclear baseload, which > > would not have seen the same rise in cost of > > generation as we have seen with Nat gas, > despite > > the increase in cost of those generation fuels. > > What you're ignoring is the cross-elasticity of > global demand between coal and gas (even when it's > dampened in the UK because there are so few coal > fired power plants). Having a whole bunch of coal > fired power plants lying around wouldn't have > meant the UK could switch from gas to coal in > response to gas getting more expensive - because > everyone else in the world will have had the same > idea, driving up the cost of coal. And that is > exactly what has happened in reality, with the > price of coal going up 300% in the past year. > > Your argument doesn't work in theory and doesn't > work in practice. > > https://www.ft.com/content/b696720f-fed4-4f4b-acbd > -302f8935c73e > https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal Haha. Brilliant. Okay, I have to stop my side of this discussion. You have a little bit of info, and think you know a lot. Look...im going to sound like a dick now, but hey ho....while you post links to articles from the Bbc, the ft etc....Im the guy that those media outlets call for an expert comment to write those articles. I don't want to betray my identity, but I've been quoted for years by those outlets on anything related to mining or energy commodities. Doesn't mean I'm right in what I say..but means I know a bit about what I'm talking about... So to have someone googling articles and telling me argument doesn't stack up is more than a little amusing. I can tell you objectively that what you are saying makes zero sense.

No. The rising gas prices don't indeed have anything to do with capacity or generation mix. But the UK's reliance on Nat gas peak load style generation (as a result of closure of base load and replacement with intermittent renewable capacity) means that the whole system is vulnerable to Nat gas price rises. The cost of Nat gas electricity generation is also far more sensitive to the price of gas, than coal fired generation is to the cost of coal, or nuclear to the cost of U308. So the increases in the cost of coal and uranium we've seen recently would not flow through to the cost of generation in the same way as they have for Nat gas. So, you are quite correct that the generation mix hasn't created a gas price spike. And that is in no way what I've said. But the mix of generation that we have has created a system VULNERABLE to that gas price rise..becuase we have low proportion of coal or nuclear baseload, which would not have seen the same rise in cost of generation as we have seen with Nat gas, despite the increase in cost of those generation fuels.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > when you don't have enough > > baseload generation...it leaves you vulnerable > to things > > like spikes in gas prices and failure of > > interconnectors. > > > > So it has everything to do with reckless > > acceleration of changes in the generation mix. > > You're (delibwrately?) confusing capacity and fuel > mix issues here. Ummm....no...I dont meant to be rude, but i think you're the one who's confused. Go look up baseload (typically coal and nuclear, sometimes nat gas - could be hydro too) and peak load (often nat gas and intermittent sources, like most renewables) generation - and see why the type of generation is critical to this whole discussion. Not all 'capacity' is created equal. You cant just replace X Gw of baseload capacity with XGw of intermittent capacity and expect to have a secure/stable energy system, which isn't vulnerable to the things we've mentioned. Until such time as efficient and cost effective battery storage becomes a reality at least.

@dogkennellhillbilly: when you don't have enough baseload generation, becuase you've shutdown your coal fired baseload (at the same time as retirement of much of the domestic nuclear baseload capacity) in favour of reliance on intermittent renewable supply for a large portion of your needs, it leaves you vulnerable to things like spikes in gas prices and failure of interconnectors. So it has everything to do with reckless acceleration of changes in the generation mix.

Price rationing demand...who says capitalism is killing the planet:) Recklessa adoption of renewables has made this situation an inevitability for some time unfort. Don't get me wrong, IM all for the energy transition/Paris Agreement etc etc, but it has to be managed properly, or this is what you end up with...

I know its hard for you, having to try and accept that there may be some good things about brexit. But I know you can do it....if Michael Barnier can do it...so can you.... https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/europe/2021/09/10/cries-of-frexit-as-michel-barnier-demands-french-sovereignty-on-immigration/

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just because you say something is desperate > doesn?t make it so > > Smugly, provocatively grinning ?it?s not as bad as > you thought? as people lose their jobs, inflation > rises, supplies dry up, companies go under, > Northern Ireland peace continues to look risky, > exports tank and friends and neighbours get caught > in a web of home office rules and punishment is > not a good look > > If you genuinely believe it?s not going badly then > you just aren?t a serious person There's 13 pages of thread here mostly made up of smug, provocative posts mocking the 'idiots' who voted for brexit. Funny how its only an issue for you when the post disagrees with your worldview. As to how its going....well if you only focus on the negatives, then of course you think its going badly...but as with anything there's good and there's bad... Oh....and just because you say im not a serious person, doesnt make it so..... Bon weekend.

Getting a little desperate with that line of argument I think Seph. It's okay...you can concede that it's not as bad as you thought it would be...this is a safe space....

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a glimmer of light upon the upland. > Brexit is working out? > Seems to be working out pretty well for the wide range of blue collar workers seeing significant pay rises at the moment? These are the same blue collar turkeys who many on here said were voting for Christmas apparently.... (and before the usual's jump all over this comment...yes not all is rosy, yes there are negative issues in other areas, yes the wage rises are not 100% due to brexit (but its a clear contributor), and yes it will also lead to some level of inflation. But in anycase....im sure you'll all be pleased that you can now see a 'tangible benefit' that you didnt think existed)

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s about time isn?t it? > > London is effectively a country within a country > and it?s about time it has its own flag. > > We could get Grayson Perry to design it, but what > should it look like? > > It should be representative of all of us here in > the great morass of London, those born here and > immigrants alike. ( (I?m a London immigrant, > having migrated up from Sussex) > > I?d be proud to fly our flag! Do you work for the Tory press office? :)