- “Hancock says jabs will be ‘paused’ for under-50s to mop up remaining over-50s” – MailOnline reports on Hancock’s press conference yesterday, the NHS warning about a reduction in vaccine deliveries, and the rollout shambles in Europe
- “Is Matt Hancock trying to spin a vaccine supply crisis?” – Isabel Hardman provides some trenchant analysis of Hancock’s press conference yesterday, for the Spectator
- “Ursula von der Leyen threatens to block Covid vaccine exports to UK” – The Telegraph reports on Ursula von der Leyen’s posturing about vaccine exports
- “Do we have informed consent for asymptomatic COVID-19 testing in schools?” – As asymptomatic mass testing in schools began last week, Jac Dinnes and Clare Davenport have written a piece for the BMJ about how well the potential benefits and harms are communicated to parents
- “Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman warns lockdown has created an ‘epidemic of demotivated children’” – Amanda Spielman addressed the Association of School and College Leaders, saying that some young children have lost skills as basic as “using a pencil” during months of home learning, according to MailOnline
- “Why did the Government bin its own pandemic plan?” – “If they hadn’t,” writes Lucy Wyatt in the Conservative Woman, “we might still have a functioning economy and young people might feel they have a future worth living for”
- “Trapped in a Covid dystopia… and we’re told to be grateful” – Gratitude is not Emily Sands-Bonin’s primary reaction to being locked down, according to her piece in the Conservative Woman
- “Laws must be general, equal and certain. And yes, that applies to lockdown gatherings too” – “It’s ok for people to gather in crowds or it’s not,” says Lord Hannan of Kingsclere in Conservative Home
- “Inflation and ‘taper tantrum’ now bigger fear than virus for investors” – Covid is no longer the biggest concern among fund managers, according to the Times
- “Britons will go on £50bn spending spree when Covid rules are lifted – report” – The Guardian reports on new research which suggests that Brits will spend 26% of accumulated savings once lockdown restrictions are lifted, giving rise to fears of inflation
- “Don’t bet on consumer spending for the Covid recovery” – Saving the economy might “not be as simple as just unleashing pent-up demand”, says Jack Barnett at CapX
- “Were we too ready to surrender our freedom?” – The past year has set a “worrying precedent for handling of the next crisis”, argues Daniel Finkelstein in the Times
- “PROTEST? You’re having a laugh!” – The latest episode of the Real Normal discusses goalpost shifting under the government’s “four tests”, Covid testing in schools and Meghan and Harry
- “New coronavirus variant found in France is undetectable by PCR tests” – The Brussels Times reports on the existence of a new variant from Brittany, France which PCR tests failed to detect
- “Has the EU lost its mind?” – In UnHerd, Peter Franklin tries to understand the EU’s increasingly erratic behaviour over vaccines and wonders if it might end up in a situation where the vulnerable are vaccinated and the rest are set free
- “Brussels embraces vaccine nationalism” – Steerpike at the Spectator has a go at working out what’s going on in Brussels
- “German ICU doctors call for ‘immediate return’ to lockdown as COVID-19 numbers rise” – The Local reports that a German doctor is calling for a return to partial lockdown
- “Coronavirus: Knesset okays electronic bracelet for returnees from abroad” – The Knesset has approved the bill requiring Israelis returning from abroad to wear an electronic bracelet which ensures they isolate at home, or be quarantined in a hotel, the Jerusalem Post reports
- “Israeli anti-vaxxers submit ethics complaint to ICC” – The Jerusalem Post reports that a group called Anshei Emet has filed a suit at the International Criminal Court contending that the Israeli Government’s administration of the coronavirus vaccine constitutes a “crime against humanity”
- “Disneyland to reopen on April 30th, Disney CEO Bob Chapek says” – CNBC reports that the Disneyland parks in California are to reopen, though with capacity much reduced and mandatory face masks
- “Travel Certificates Proposed in Europe in Hope of Saving Summer Season” – The New York Times reports on the EU’s proposed COVID-19 certificates
- “More ‘Covid suicides’ than Covid deaths in kids” – Micha Gratz presents some grim statistics at AIER
- “Moderna Is Testing Its COVID-19 Vaccine on Young Children” – A new trial will test the Moderna vaccine on children aged six months to 11 years, the Wall Street Journal reports
- “Australian health minister in hospital after vaccination but link ruled out” – Reuters reports that Australian Minister Greg Hunt’s hospital stay is not connected to his having been vaccinated two days previously
- “Five questions before you dare lock us down again” – Writing in Spectator Australia, James Allan lists five questions that must be answered “yes” for a lockdown to be justified: Question 1: Is the damage from lockdowns “ultimately less than the damage if you shunned lockdowns”
- “Dr. Scott Atlas – Stanford College Republicans – Science, Politics, and COVID-19: Will Truth Prevail?” – Watch Scot Atlas’s lecture to Stanford College Republicans
- Dr John Lee tells Julia Hartley-Brewer on talkRADIO that it isn’t just the EU that’s hamstrung by the precautionary principle
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Positive discrimination is double speak.
If you discriminate “positively” towards say a black person, you are discriminating “negatively” against a white or Asian or other person.
When black people, Jews, Asians and other peoples were discriminates against, it wasn’t called “positive” discrimination towards whites. It was called discrimination, or more bluntly racism.
“Positive discrimination” is just a way of sanitising a new form of racism.
The justification used in the US is “because slavery”. It’s almost certain the US Supreme Court will rule race-based admissions policies in colleges are unconstitutional. They’ve had them for ages – at least 30 years I think, when an earlier court judgement commented that they would probably not be needed beyond a 30 year window. They still exist – in fact they have probably increased. The “Asians” (mainly Indians and Chinese, Koreans I think) are coming off very badly, being pushed out by lower-scoring blacks in college admissions, so they have brought this case. The question is, at what point will the need to “right the wrongs of the past” disappear? The answer is of course it never will because this is nothing to do with righting the wrongs of the past (except in the minds of gullible, do-gooding middle class lefty whites) – it’s a war where only equality (or superiority) of outcome will satisfy the people attacking our civilisation. A war we will almost certainly lose.
Indeed. In the USA we call it “affirmative action”, among other euphemisms. I do understand the sentiment originally behind it, of course, but the problem is that there is no off-switch, and it ends up being like The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Pretty soon you jump the shark, and don’t realize you have overcorrected until it’s too late. And it can also backfire on the very same people it is supposed to help.
“ And it can also backfire on the very same people it is supposed to help.”
Indeed, and I suspect there are those who use this as a divide and rule tactic, who are not actually interested in helping anyone except themselves and their cronies.
So how do we know when the shark has been jumped, albeit only in hindsight? Well, as soon as the language switches from “equality” to “equity”, it becomes quite obvious indeed.
And when they use the word “equality” they mean equality of outcome, because they claim anything less is evidence of racism or some other kind of “unjust” discrimination.
Indeed, that is what they mean.
Agree with the sentiments here, and what I think is the real tragedy of all this “discrimination” (positive or otherwise – what’s the diff) is what does it say to those who achieved their success without any of the assistance? More over, will any and all of those who are now by default under the banner of potentially benefitting from positive discrimination, wonder.. did I succeed through merit or some mysterious leg up? We’re lessoning the achievements of so many whom have already succeeded and will succeed through hard work and skill (not because your skin happens to be a certain shade). I despise this agenda, even with the best of intentions, discrimination will / is causing more problems than it’s [supposedly] solving – shock horror. I thought we’d learnt the lessons, but apparently not.
Indeed. I’m not eligible to be a “recipient” of this “help” but if I was I think I would find it patronising in the extreme.
Indeed, it is patronizing in the extreme.
If the following generations of black people feel so badly dealt with as result of their forbears slavery, they are now free to return to Africa or the country of their historical origin, but this does not seem to be happening in any great numbers. Surely this demonstrates that the harm that took place hundreds of years ago, has now been forgiven and forgotten and all races should learn to live together without predjudice and people should accept the laws and customs of the place that they choose to live in.
Totally accurate Stewart!. ” Equality Act” is a contradiction in terms, if you chose one candidate over the other for any other reason except being competent to do the job, you are being racist, sexist, ableist,ageist..etc!
If all applicants are competent of doing the job, put their names in a hat and draw out the successful person in front of them all!
That’s called fair.
And a mini statement from our Prof Fenton re ‘Bridgengate’. Comments underneath sum up the general consensus on here I’d say;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV_C9xkTT-w&ab_channel=NormanFenton
True story- a colleague was invited to a diversity event (excuse to reinforce their wokeness) run by the organisation for which we work. She was turned away when she arrived. The reason….she was white. Can’t make this sh’&t up.
Diversity only when it is convenient for the wokesters.
At the next GE almost all white voters will vote for anti-white parties..
Indeed. All the mainstream parties are anti-white.
A couple of quotes from Thomas Sowell seem apt:
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
“If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.”
Indeed, the terms “civil rights” and “human rights” generally cover enough ground. Beware of anyone who reflexively objects to using those terms for not being specific enough, because reasons. Sometimes specificity makes sense, of course, but usually it is quite redundant (if not altogether inegalitarian).
I can recommend ‘The Diversity Delusion’ by Heather MacDonald.
This Act is the most despicable, racist and shameful piece of legislation to have been enacted by the UK. It is 100% anti MLK and is closer to Apartheid Era S Africa than a civilised and fair democracy. ‘Grouping’ human beings by the shade of their skin is ignorant beyond belief. In practice, it is terribly unbalanced and unfair against white people. Take the NHS for example, compared to the ‘fair’ (i.e. representative of the split of UK population), so called white people are woefully under-represented. To redress this, can you imagine the NHS conducting a ‘whites only need apply’ recruitment campaign? That would be just as wrong. Treat people as humans first and foremost – repeal this crazy law immediately and, as a country, follow the MLK way of thinking.
You know which is the most “undiverse” group of people and yet you never hear about any policies to make it more diverse?
Billionaires.
Is it legal for international management consultants to instruct their in house recruiters not to shortlist any men – regardless of qualifications? This is what they are doing.
What is equal about prioritising one group over another? that is the very opposite of equality, more topsy turvy upside down from our Government. Why isn’t competency the decider on who is best for a job?
This Government and HR departments throughout the country are racist, they are racist against white people, against men and against those who are fully able bodied and hetrosexual. In other words a white male who has no disabiliy and has a partner of the opposite sex, is, regardless of qualification and suitability for a job, is the last candidate that a company would choose. This is discrimination, racism and sexism. This discrimination is actively promoted and supported by the Government and civil servants. Think if the same “equality” discrimination was applied to the afore mentioned groups there would be an outcry and human rights cases flying left, right and centre. Why then is it ok to select a particular group for active discrimination and get away with it?
This is once again about division because divided people will fight each other, whilst those who create the divison accrue more power and control over us. They the Government and the civil servants are the enemy, not the person who is a different race, sexual persuasion, gender, or other characteristics this Government is trying to create disharmony in.
The white ‘go along to get along’ professional and managerial classes can hardly complain if they are discriminated against from here on in
I’ve interviewed and recruited staff countless times. I’ve never seen an instance where two candidates were 100% identical. Even if they have the exact same qualifications, with the exact same grades, from the exact same institutions, and have the exact same prior experience, and have the exact same score on a practical test. At that point, they are judged on engagement with the interview process, knowledge of the company they’re seeking employment at etc. Pretending candidates can ever be 100% equal is just an excuse to allow leftist racial discrimination and equality to be used.
What is descibed here is racial prejudice and supported by legislation. This in any logical situation should be eliminated by the race relations act. It is no wonder in some major cities the native indigenous population is becoming the discriminated against minority. I have nothing against black or Asian people or any other race or group but employers should be free to appoint their choice of the person most suitable to do a good job without considering their race.