All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2020 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
54:27
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #17
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to our second podcast today, the podcast of the Logistics on Wednesday the 2nd of December 2020.
I'm joined by Josh.
How are you doing, man?
Very well, thanks.
How are you?
Yeah, I'm good.
Glad to be able to broadcast again, to be honest.
And today we're going to be talking about the lockdown tyranny in Britain, as we have today just come out of a lockdown into...
A more harsh tear for most places than we were in before.
And we're also going to be talking about the COVID vaccine.
But first, we're going to be talking about the least controversial subject that we could be bringing up, which is, I don't know, how do we describe it?
Gender dysphoria being banned in the UK for under-16s, something like that.
Well, there was a recent ruling that stated that under-16s cannot consent to being given puberty-blocking drugs and...
The BBC reporting on it was actually quite good, and they stopped using the term transgender and have started using the more kind of psychologically appropriate gender dysphoria, which I'm quite happy about.
Right, so before we go on, can you tell people about your background, just so we can see why this is relevant?
So I've got a master's degree in psychological research methods and I specialised in the field of decision making.
It's not necessarily clinical psychology but I've obviously learnt a fair bit about that along the way and I did cover gender dysphoria while I was at university and they taught it in a very different way than perhaps the media talks about it in a far more scientific way I suppose.
So the media, if I were to guess, talk about it in a more ideological way that's more in line with political correctness.
Yeah, essentially.
In the kind of scientific community, you use the term gender dysphoria.
The term transgender doesn't really get used unless it's like a colloquialism in reference to how the general public talks about it.
But generally speaking, it's a definable definition.
And so how is it defined, just since you know all this?
So there's a couple of diagnostic manuals that clinicians use.
For example, in America, I believe they use the DSM-5, which is something that's compiled by the American Psychological Association.
And essentially, this is what they use to diagnose people of clinical disorders.
And They've essentially got the kind of transgenderism and gender dysphoria, and that's how it is viewed by psychologists, although it's very rarely framed that way.
Right, and is it viewed as a medical disorder?
Yes.
Right.
And the BBC are now framing it as a medical disorder, not as an activist movement?
I agree with you, normally they use very progressive language when describing these things.
I have seen them use the word transgender many times.
Lots of times, yeah.
They've all of a sudden changed their tune with this new ruling, which seems promising at least.
But anyway, I'll get on to the case.
So essentially it was brought against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which is a gender identity clinic in London.
It's the only one, isn't it?
Brought by a former transgender person who changed their mind about transitioning.
Their name is Keira Bell and she said that she was delighted by the judgement and I'll just give a bit of background on what her story is and why she would be happy about this judgement.
So she visited the Tavistock Centre when she was only 16 and she was prescribed puberty blockers after only three hour long meetings.
So she only spoke to a psychologist for three hours before being prescribed these puberty blockers and then later she was given testosterone and then by the age of 20 she underwent a double mastectomy.
So this is all stuff that cannot be reversed.
Yeah.
And just before we go on as well, the puberty blockers, as I understand it, there are long-term consequences for these, aren't there?
Yeah, well, it messes with your biological balance and that can't be reversed.
Yeah, and I recall reading something, there are concerns about osteoporosis, where it's like bone density is reduced and things like that in adulthood.
Yeah.
I haven't heard about that, but that wouldn't surprise me because I imagine throughout puberty, I think your bone density increases, which is why it's easier for children to break bones than it is for adults.
But yeah, I recall reading something a while back about it.
This is long-term consequences.
And as BBC reported probably about six months ago, they did a Newsnight piece on it.
And they just admitted that these are kind of untested drugs and this is experimental procedures.
Well, yeah, these procedures have very little in the way of evidence to support them in their treatment.
And as I'll get into later, there's actually a lot of evidence to say that they do far more harm than good.
in existence and i'll uh provide the evidence for that claim in a second let's hear it um but i'll carry on uh with this case sorry um so she realized about a year ago that she'd made a mistake about transitioning and wanted to go back but obviously there had been permanent damage and uh she argued that the clinic had essentially not challenged her motives enough and as she was only 16
at the time she felt like she didn't know enough about the long-term consequences to make an informed decision And she is quoted as stating, this judgment is not political, it's about protecting vulnerable children.
So that's the rationale behind it.
It's not seeking to necessarily discriminate against people, it's just about protecting the rights of children, which I think most people are for.
Yeah, looking out for their interests as they grow into adults rather than allowing...
Because, I mean, you just think about it, it's a huge decision for someone who otherwise can't drink or drive to make.
I mean, this is wild.
I don't think I was capable of making any responsible decisions at 16.
I can't believe we're expected to choose our careers at 16.
I know, that was difficult enough.
Yeah, I know.
But anyway, sorry, I'll let you carry on.
So the sitting justices summarised their conclusions and they said it is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers and they also added in respect of young persons aged 16 and over the legal position is that there is a presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment However, even for 16 or 17 year olds, it may be appropriate to involve the courts in this decision.
However, 18 plus are still free to use the services that are provided at the Tavistock Centre, kind of unimpeded by the courts.
See, now, to me, that just sounds like a perfectly sensible judgment.
Yeah, I see nothing wrong there at all.
Absolutely.
I mean, you know, coming from a kind of, you know, classically liberal perspective, I think, you know, you own your body.
I mean, there have been cases of people who have wanted to have limbs amputated, and one woman blinded herself with bleach because she just felt like she should.
I'm going to talk about that in a minute.
Right, okay.
Sorry, I didn't even realise.
I won't try and jump ahead.
But, I mean, you know, as much as I might think that that's There is still somewhat of an ethical debate there,
I feel, because in the UK we accept that sometimes people cannot be responsible to look out for their own health, particularly in cases of severe mental disorders, and I mean, I would suggest that wanting to cut off one of your limbs that is otherwise healthy might well be a mental disorder.
I'm no expert.
I wouldn't encourage it.
I wouldn't encourage anything, any sort of physical changes that have permanent damage potentially to you.
Don't do anything if you don't need to do anything.
I mean, it's very conservative, I guess, but common sense rule.
But yeah, like I said, adults obviously I think they should have the right to...
If they want to do this and they're considered to be mentally sound in other respects, fine.
There is, of course, the argument that if it's being funded by the NHS, then maybe the general public could have a say on it.
It's kind of a very grey area.
You wanted the universal healthcare, now you've got it!
Now we've got claims on you!
But the justices went on to say that there was a culture of unreality that has become embedded in the Tavistock Centre, and this may have led to hundreds of children receiving this experimental treatment without their properly informed consent, which I think I couldn't have put it better myself.
I mean, when you think about it, whenever I talk to people I know from other countries, especially Eastern Europe and places like that, where they don't have political correctness, and they don't really understand the power that political correctness has on the thought processes of people in this country, they find it hard to believe that there's no way that police would let grooming gangs go on because they're afraid of being called racists.
It's like, Yeah, they will.
You know, there's no way that they're going to let, like, 13-year-olds begin gender transition surgeries and hormone treatments and whatnot because they're afraid of being called transphobic.
It's like, yeah, they will, you know, and these are things that strike me as, I mean, again, it's just a common-sense position, but it doesn't look like it's going to age well, does it, you know?
No, I mean, it is so...
I don't know the word, really.
It's almost callous.
It's irresponsible.
Yeah.
And, like, with this lady, what was her name saying?
I can't remember her name now.
Kiera Bell.
Kiera Bell, yeah.
In her case, she's actually had to go through it.
Now she's got to live with the consequences of this forever.
A double mastectomy, whatever problems come from hormone treatments that delayed her puberty.
I looked into the puberty blockers.
They were originally designed for people who had serious medical conditions, not for people who had gender dysphoria.
Yeah, there's no evidence to suggest that they're going to help anyone, essentially.
Like the justices said, they're an experimental treatment.
There's no evidence for it.
Yeah, and so we've been allowing radical leftists to experiment on children...
And there are children now, people who have become adults now, saying this was a terrible thing and I should have been stopped.
Not encouraged to get on them after three hours of consultation.
It's totally irresponsible.
It's nuts.
I don't understand how any psychologist can ever approve of this.
I mean, there's a very stringent ethical guideline, particularly in the UK. It's the British Psychological Association.
No, Society, sorry.
I'm getting mixed between the American and the English one there.
But they have very strict ethical guidelines that every psychologist should be made aware of and be very familiar with.
So I feel like anyone who's approved this sort of thing should lose their license to practice because they're not considering the welfare of the people they're meant to be helping.
Yeah.
It seems very ideological.
It seems that they've got a goal that they're trying to achieve and they have a preset set of ideas that they're trying to fulfil rather than looking out for the interests.
But anyway, let's carry on.
Sure.
So I thought I would go into gender dysphoria a little bit more and actually cover the scientific side of things because...
I particularly want to look at why there is a distinction of it being a clinical disorder as opposed to how it's characterised in the media and I've got a kind of an extract from the American Psychological Association which is kind of the guiding light for the rest of the world a lot of the times in terms of psychological diagnosis and they say For a person to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria,
there must be a marked difference between the individual's expressed and experienced gender and the gender others would assign him or her, and it must continue for at least six months.
In children, the desire to be the other gender must be present and verbalised.
The condition causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
Gender dysphoria is manifested in a variety of ways, including strong desires to be treated as the other gender or to be rid of one's sex characteristics or a strong conviction that one has feelings and reactions typical of the other gender, which...
There's a lot of assumptions built into that, aren't there?
Yeah.
The definition has been moved slightly.
This is the most recent one, but it used to be a lot more objective and less focused on one's own self-perception.
The experiences or feelings of the person.
I think they've received an immense amount of pressure and the APA has gone through quite a few scandals and I think they're just trying to preserve their reputation, although a lot of practicing clinicians would probably take this definition with a pinch of salt.
A lot of the clinical psychologists that I spoke to have Essentially characterised it in terms that are not too unfamiliar to other clinical disorders.
So you think there's been a political pressure from what I guess we'll just describe as the trans lobby to have the definition focused in this way rather than as a more objective one?
The APA has a really marked reputation.
They've been involved in lots of scandals and they are clearly trying to change their public perception.
They don't want to undermine the whole field of psychology simply for...
You know, some terminology and wording, I think.
But I'm going to go on to some more statistics here.
And these are taken from Stonewall, which is an LGBTQIA plus charity.
And even they term things in quite unfavourable ways, should I say.
So they say that almost half, or 48% of trans people in Britain, have attempted suicide at least once, 84% have at least thought about it, and more than half, 55%, have been diagnosed with depression at some point.
They are advocating for trans rights, and this is what they have on their website.
These are their statistics.
Yeah.
This was from a sample of 889 people, which is quite a lot by any measure, really.
Yeah.
Outside of that, in the more scientific research, there was a recent 2019 study in the US spanning 10 different states that found that 34.6% of transgender youths have attempted suicide in the past 12 months, which is far higher than lesbian, gay and bisexuals, which place slightly above the average.
Right, okay.
So it's suggesting that these extremely vulnerable people, and they have rates of attempted suicide that are unparalleled in society anywhere, even in conditions that are as severe as schizophrenia, it's like three times higher, and that's like the number one rehabilitating psychological disorder.
Yeah, and we're giving ideological zealots access to these people.
I mean, I don't want to overstate the case, but I don't think I am.
No, that's a perfectly reasonable claim.
The courts would agree with you.
Yeah, exactly, yeah.
As the legal judgment suggests, you know, these people should probably be protected from the activists.
Absolutely, yeah.
And there was an even better study than this, which really went to demonstrate this point.
It was a 30-year longitudinal study in Sweden...
Which found that those with gender dysphoria were 19 times more likely to attempt suicide and had a three times higher mortality rate overall than the general population.
So that would be unintentional deaths as well, which were largely linked to drug abuse, which I believe...
Much higher risk of, yeah.
I think it's about 20% higher than the general population.
When you start saying it's like depression and other mental disorders, you get a cluster of behaviours around that.
Yeah.
Fairly predictable.
I mean, I've known people with depression who fall into similar sort of patterns of behavior.
This is just my own experience, but I think it's probably something common, isn't it?
Yeah, and in gender dysphoria there's something known as a comorbid conditions and they're essentially conditions that co-occur with gender dysphoria and one of the main ones which provide a good rationale that it is its own distinct clinical disorder is that it co-occurs with body integrity identity disorder in about 19% of cases which is a disorder where you feel like A
part of your body should not be a part of your body which ties into the woman who blinded herself with drain cleaner in 2015 because she said she always dreamed of being disabled and she said I should have been blind from birth and if you could...
You've brought up the article already.
You can see her there with her self-inflicted blindness, and I would like to point out that she conspired with a psychologist to do this, and her and her psychologist used drain cleaner to blind her, which is horrific.
How, as someone who is, I guess we'd call a psychologist yourself, how do you feel about the psychologist she was working with?
Mortified.
It demeans our entire profession.
Yeah, exactly.
We're going to work with you to help you blind yourself with drain cleaner.
I mean, that is wild.
There's always someone who has it worse than you, I think, is the lesson we can take away from it.
Yeah, definitely.
Jesus.
I don't understand how they could ever justify that other than they're just trying to reaffirm people's own delusions to themselves, which is really harmful.
Yeah, so I've got a question.
I never see it raised.
I mean, I see it raised often that people will say, well, you know, I was born in the wrong body and therefore I have to change my body to fit my perception of myself as if the will is some sort of separate entity to the body.
But obviously the will is a property of the body.
You know, it's a construct of your brain, which is a biological organ, which is influenced by your hormones.
And I mean, I assume that there's Some sort of hormone imbalance or excess of testosterone or something like that with women who feel like they're men and then transition to become men.
Why is it never suggested that they're just given doses of the hormone that suits their gender?
Because the systems are far more complex and we've tried that.
Not me specifically, but psychologists have tried that.
Okay, doctor.
So they've tried it and there were suggestions that it worked in some rare cases where essentially they gave someone a A pill which was meant to correct their hormonal imbalance, and it did work in one case, but then in 34 others it didn't.
So it could just be that, you know, it's environmental factors rather than the actual biological, because it's very difficult in human beings to attribute anything to the actual treatment, because human beings are...
Complex things that have lots of forces pulling on them at all times, yeah.
Okay.
Right, okay.
Is there anything else we need to know?
No, I don't think so.
I think I've covered the majority of it there.
So this, the ruling then, is going to mean that people under 16, was it?
Yeah.
Won't be able to have any kind of transitionary surgery or treatments.
That's right, yeah.
They are viewed as not being able to consent, and therefore, if they are to at all, it would have to be at 16, and they'd have to get court involvement...
To rule on the case before they go to the Tavistock Centre.
This is going to be a weird question, but what's been the pink news response to this?
Well, they're crying murder, aren't they?
I guess they must be, yeah.
They think it's awful and that it's essentially transphobia encoded into our legal system.
Yes, so I think we can chalk this up as a win for common sense.
I'd say so.
a win for people who, uh, don't want to be manipulated by radical ideologues who think that you should be able to manipulate a child's body in this way, uh, long before they're able to give consent to anything else in life.
Um, so thank God something sensible at last.
Uh, so moving on to things that are not sensible.
In fact, we do some, uh, super chats before we move on.
Um, uh, the teabag who laughs, uh, thank you for the donation.
Unholy, Mr.
Kader, is his first name Alan?
I don't get that reference.
Alex Andrew says, caught the earlier podcast on the 40k talk, got me thinking.
Could Warhammer appeal to something in our thinking that is not fulfilled or addressed by mainstream liberal view of the world?
Yes.
And I think the answer to that is that fundamentally conflict is a part of being a human.
And conflict resolution, non-violent conflict resolution, is something that liberalism is very, very good at.
But that does, you know, there's a certain percentage of the population who don't agree with it, who believe in violent methods.
So that leaves that segment of the population underserved, doesn't it?
Anyway, Charlie the Beagle says, That's really cheesy.
The Engaged Few says, Last night was the third time I saw Star Wars is pro-Jedi propaganda written on the wall of a bathroom stall.
I thought I'd let you know.
Really?
They're not wrong.
I'm not wrong, and we got deplatformed from Teespring for having that t-shirt, so be careful.
We've apparently stumbled on some conspiracy, some pro-Jedi conspiracy regarding Star Wars.
Be careful of the thread that you pull, you might find yourself deplatformed.
Reverend North says, media use transgender as if it is a lifestyle choice like goth or hippie.
Good to see the use of gender dysphoria and step forward for the public debate.
Well, that's exactly what you're saying.
And you're right, they call them trans-trenders for those people who are using it like a lifestyle choice.
There is division within the trans community over this.
The engaged view says, and moving him to a side camera is taking care of the distraction of his head movements.
Now he's even easier on the eyes than before.
I'll soon be talking about me there.
Thank you.
No, I think it was me in the last podcast.
I was moving around a lot.
Right, okay.
But I've been trying to be as still as possible now.
Yeah, we've got to be like statues.
Love the show and the whole crew.
Greetings from Sweden.
Thank you very much, Reverend.
Thank you.
Grant says, Gotta tell your other plebs to lift their mics up closer.
G'day from the prison colonies, your bloody pom woofers.
Well, yes, you do.
I think you have.
So that's...
We are.
Red Fox Moon says, Josh over Kyle, vastly more British.
Enjoy some shill and simp bucks from Norway.
This is unacceptable.
How is this happening?
David Edward says, I can't sign the chat I wanted because I can't call you a B-O-O-B-E-R. B-M-E-R. Finally got YouTube to censor that for you, eh?
I had no idea that YouTube was censoring the word boomer.
Surely it's not.
I can't believe it is.
It must have been something else that you were saying in your super chat.
The age of child psychologists.
When do we take back our world from these people and usher in the Starship Troopers universe?
Well, sooner rather than later, hopefully, and thankfully we at least have one court ruling in our favour.
So that's good.
But anyway...
Let's talk about the lockdown tyranny that is something that in Britain we have just come out of, but frankly this is hardly a better state of affairs in many parts of the country.
So let's begin with Wales, the rainy, craggy area of Britain that we don't talk about nearly enough.
I think we do need to shine a light on Wales sometimes, because I do wonder what they're getting up to.
For example, back in October, on the 23rd, Wales went into a sort of 17-day, what was it, firebreak lockdown or whatever they called it?
A circuit break?
I think so, yeah.
A very scientifically valid concept, no doubt.
You know, long amounts of research behind it.
But anyway, everything was forced to close in Wales.
And the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, said that supermarkets, because regular shops weren't just allowed to open and sell regular goods, non-essential goods weren't allowed to be sold in the supermarkets, otherwise it would be unfair.
Unfair on who is the question, because that meant that non-essential goods like, you Strange, like, things like that were just covered up even though they're just right there on the shelf in the supermarket.
You're not allowed to buy them because Chancellor, sorry, First Minister Mark Drakeford said that that would be fair.
It was crazy because the retailers weren't even given rules to explain what essential meant.
So it seems to have been totally arbitrary.
But that went and passed, and now Wales has come out of the lockdown and, like the rest of us, have gone into the tiered system that is being implemented across Britain from today.
And for some reason, Wales has gone nuts on this.
I don't know why.
I don't know why the Welsh have decided to go into full-on prohibition.
It's such a bizarre thing.
As reported by the BBC, Welsh pubs, restaurants and cafes will be banned from serving alcohol from Friday and will be unable to open to customers beyond 6 o'clock in the evening in British time.
First Minister Mark Drakeford announced that the new rules are to tackle a rise in coronavirus cases.
I don't know how that works, to be honest.
He's not following the science, is he?
There's certainly no scientific basis for that at all.
That's so punitive.
It's something that Calvin or Cromwell would have done.
Sorry, you're not allowed to...
A, we're going to stop you serving after 6 o'clock in the evening, so you can't exactly go out for a meal with your family, which is crazy, but you can't buy a beer with your meal.
It's just so punitive.
I don't think there's any example elsewhere of anyone doing this either, which kind of just suggests it's a weird kind of...
1920s America, probably.
Are we expecting a kind of Welsh Al Capone to come out of this?
I mean...
Get some cider in your boy.
So obviously business groups and like the representatives of the hospitality industry are like, why?
Please no.
This is going to destroy our hospitality industry with closures guaranteed.
Indoor entertainment and visitor attractions including cinemas, museums and galleries are all also shut.
So if you wanted to do something fun, that's literally off the table, and you can't even drink yourself and drown your sorrows.
You know, it's mad.
Apparently businesses can offer a takeaway service after 8 o'clock, and if they have an off-license, they can sell takeaway alcohol until 10 o'clock in the evening.
So you can drink elsewhere, but you can't drink in the pub while you're eating your meal.
I don't know the rationale behind this.
I mean...
Can I get a non-alcoholic beer?
I'd imagine they've probably done that as well.
By those rules, if it's just alcoholic drinks, which is the way they've categorised it, then if I can get non-alcoholic beer, how is this preventing coronavirus?
Mark Drakeford is a Labour Party member.
He is the Labour First Minister, and this is the kind of irrational tyranny that I think that Labour are quite fond of, really.
Unbelievably, it makes Plaid Cymru the sort of defenders of liberty in this case, where they say that the hospitality industry is paying the price for a lack of stricter measures after the firebreak lockdown ended on the 9th of November.
So we should have locked down harder, and now we're going to have to lock down because of that.
But all of this, according to Mark Drakeford, is because he thinks that there could be between 1,000 and 1,700 preventable deaths over the winter.
Preventable being if we literally prevent you from having a society, then these people won't die.
He doesn't speak about the people who will die from the lockdowns and from the other effects, and just from poverty and various knock-on causes, because who cares?
But the reason this is all being done is because of a case rate rise.
So in Wales there is 187 cases per 100,000 people, and that went up to 210 cases, and therefore no beer.
And is that 1,000 to 1,700 estimate just to do with the ban on alcohol, or is it just for the measures in general?
It's not entirely clear.
No, nothing is entirely clear.
That's the problem.
He just thinks that without these changes...
So presumably he must be saying, logically, we're going to ban alcohol to prevent deaths from COVID. There are going to be 1,000 to 1,700 preventable deaths over the winter.
Therefore, the banning of the alcohol must be key to preventing these deaths?
But they can still drink at home.
So it's not the alcohol itself.
It's the selling of the alcohol in the pub.
The only thing I can think of is that if someone's been drinking, they're going to be more disinhibited, less aware of social distancing.
But that's a bit of a stretch, really.
You could even have it limited to, like...
Yeah, one or two beers with your meal or something.
If you're able to drive a car, I think that's fine.
Yeah.
Mad.
But thankfully, the pub owners of North Wales are not taking this lying down, as Mark Drakeford has been banned from every pub in North Wales.
I'm not even joking.
In a letter addressed to the First Minister, the West Conway Pub Watch said he's been banned from more than 70 pubs for, quote, anti-social behaviour.
Now, that is a fantastic form of...
I would like to see more of our politicians who demand lockdowns or irrational restrictions to be banned from the things that they're restricting.
They're not going to be able to enjoy these things.
I think that's fantastic.
So we can move to Scotland, where Scotland is in not the highest tier, so we've got tiers 1 to 4.
Tier 4 is extremely restrictive, but most people in Scotland are now in tier 3, 4 million people.
Restrictions see cafes, pubs and restaurants allowed to open until six o'clock to serve food and non-alcoholic drinks to groups of up to six from two households.
Alcohol sales are not permitted indoors or outdoors.
Again, why?
And how long are the Scots going to live with not being able to get whiskey?
I think they're going to go into shock.
Like, this is worse prohibition than in Wales.
Alcohol sales are not permitted indoors or outdoors.
At least you get takeaway in Wales.
If you told me, like, last year, that Scotland's going to ban alcohol, I never would have believed you.
That's ridiculous!
Scotland and Wales are going to ban alcohol.
Right, okay, that's nonsense.
I noticed they haven't done this in Britain, though, in England, which...
It surprises me, actually.
But this is wild.
And obviously all leisure and entertainment venues are closed at this level, including cinemas, because why do you need an entertainment industry?
If you've got no hospitality industry, you don't need an entertainment industry.
you can go and sit sober at home and enjoy that quality family time, which I'm sure everyone's getting a lot of at this point.
But indoor exercise, which includes gyms, are restricted to individual and not group exercise.
Tier 2 in Scotland is hardly any better, really.
Well, it's slightly better.
In this tier, there is no in-home socialising allowed, and up to six people from two households can meet outdoors and in hospitality settings.
Licensed premises can only serve alcohol indoors with a main meal, and then only until 8 o'clock, because at quarter past 8, alcohol spreads the coronavirus if you're eating with your meal or something.
I don't know. - Right.
Outdoors, you can be served until 10.30, because at 11 o'clock, again, rampant coronavirus spreading, I guess.
At least it's considerate up until that time.
Yeah, I guess so.
Most leisure and entertainment premises are closed except gyms, cinemas, bingo halls and amusement arcades, where three councils have been moved across to this.
Most people are in Tier 3 in Scotland now, so no alcohol for most of Scotland.
But the rest, I imagine, are taking advantage of that one or two beers that they can have for their meals.
England, the tiers that England's in, so most of England is in Tier 2 now, but a substantial portion of England is in Tier 3.
So Tier 3 being no household mixing indoors or in some outdoor spaces, pubs and baths and not serving meals, are closed.
Tier 2 is the no household mixing indoors.
The rule of six applies outdoors.
Pubs and restaurants are forced to shut at 10pm, but at least they can serve.
And Tier 1, which is just Cornwall and the Isle of Wight, the rule of six meeting indoors or outdoors, pubs and restaurants shut at 10pm.
So not a huge difference, really.
But the thing that this leads us to is asking ridiculous questions, because these are ridiculous rules that don't appear to have been very successful.
We've just come out of a lockdown.
For like a month.
And if we now still have to go into like these sort of partial lockdowns in the tiers, are these really helping?
Especially as the NHS is not drastically overburdened.
Like the whole point of this isn't just like they've adopted the rhetoric of, you know, defeating the virus.
Matt Hancock was in Parliament yesterday saying, oh, we've got to crush the coronavirus.
Like, I don't think we can, mate.
You know?
I think we actually over-prepared in a lot of cases.
Yeah, absolutely.
Like all of these, was it the Nightingale hospitals?
I think hardly any of them actually got used in the end.
They set them all up, anticipating it to be far worse than it actually was.
Yep.
And...
Again, I think that they've committed to something that they're too embarrassed to walk back and admit that they've made a mistake.
But anyway, we get to the ridiculous questions that we are forced to ask, such as, is a Scotch egg a substantial meal?
Now, I, for one, am glad that the government is debating this.
I want a national public dialogue on this.
I want this to be settled for once and for all.
So in 100 years time, 500 years time, when the historians look back, they go, look, we've got an answer, a constitutionally acceptable answer to whether a scotch egg is a substantial meal or not back in 2020 with the coronavirus pandemic.
Who cares?
Anyway, as the BBC report, drinkers in Tier 2 areas of England could order a scotch egg with their pint to keep in line with post-lockdown rules, a cabinet minister has said.
Under new restrictions, pubs in those higher-risk areas can only open if they function as a restaurant, and alcohol can only be served as part of, quote, a substantial meal.
Environment Secretary George Eustace told LBC Radio that scotch eggs would constitute such a meal if there was table service.
So as long as you don't get the scotch egg from the bar, it's a substantial meal.
But if you go to the bar to get that scotch egg, it's no longer a substantial meal.
That seems perfectly reasonable.
I see no problem there.
I don't understand how it could even be in debate.
Like, a scotch egg, for anyone who doesn't actually know, is just a boiled egg with some batter and breadcrumbs.
So it's like a little snack sort of thing.
Yeah.
They're really nice though.
They're good.
I mean, being honest, I don't think I would classify them as a substantial meal.
No, definitely not.
You can eat them in one bite if you really want to.
Don't encourage it.
I probably could, I think.
But the thing is, like, this is the point, isn't it?
You know, no one looks at a Scotch egg and thinks, oh, that's a substantial meal.
But the Environment Secretary here is just perfectly prepared to fudge the definition of what a substantial meal is, just because people are going to like, so I can't get a pint if I don't have a Scotch egg.
I'm pretty sure Michael Gove, he was doing the kind of rounds on TV, and at the start of the morning, it was all in one day, he was saying, oh, it's not a substantial meal, they're nice, I like them, but unfortunately they're not.
And then around about his second or third interview, he was just like, oh, I'd definitely say a Scotch egg is a substantial meal, so I don't know what's going on there.
As long as we've got Michael Gove's approval, then we're good to go.
This is ridiculous.
I mean, like, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said, I'm obviously not going to get into the detail of every possible meal, but we've been clear.
Bar snacks do not count as a substantial meal, but it's a well-established practice in the hospitality industry that what does?
Then why is it so difficult to answer the question?
Why have we got two conflicting answers on the scotch egg question?
I mean...
Why can't you provide us with a list of every possible...
I mean, you can do categories of meal if you want.
Do we have to have, like, you know, meat, veg, and potatoes, or chips, or whatever?
I mean, you know, it should be fairly easy.
But again, you created these ridiculous rules.
I just think you should just let people go and live their lives.
But, um...
He said, I think a scotch egg probably would count as a substantial meal if there was table service, according to Mr Eustace.
This is ridiculous, right?
But this is not the end of how ridiculous things are, because it turns out that the government ban on sex is still in force.
People might not know that there's actually a sex ban in England if you don't live with the person you're having sex with, which really suggests some really inappropriate jokes, doesn't it?
But unironically, as the Metra report, a ban on couples having sex if they don't live together will continue for anyone living in a Tier 2 or Tier 3 area, Matt Hancock has confirmed.
So who put Matt Hancock as the Sharia Patrol of Britain?
Like, When did he get to decide the kind of food you get to eat and the people you get to have sex with?
If I'd said this a year ago, you'd be like, that's never going to happen.
I mean, before...
They're not going to ban alcohol.
They're not going to make you have sex with the only people you live with.
Before coronavirus, I didn't even know who he was, and now he's telling me what I can eat and who to sleep with.
It's weird.
I just...
It's so ridiculous.
It's so...
I just can't get over it.
The idea that the Conservative government think that they have some kind of authority to tell me who I should and shouldn't be sleeping with, like have consensual sex with, is mad.
It's absolutely mad.
But anyway, mixing with others outside of your household or support bubble is still banned indoors.
We have support bubbles.
So is it two families?
I believe so, yeah.
Two other families can interact with your family individually.
because these are horrifically complex rules, you might not be able to do it in your house.
You might have to go outside to do it, because why not?
Why not?
I mean, so interesting that meeting up in the park with a bottle of white lightning is still permitted, but having sex with one of those people is not permitted.
Teenagers around the country are just like, Jesus, sweating.
I'm just...
It's like something from Monty Python.
It is actually ridiculous.
It means the casual sex ban, which has been in place in some areas since the tier system was introduced since October 12th, will likely continue for several more months.
People living in Cornwall, the Silly Isles and the Isle of Wight, the only places in Tier 1, sorry, I forgot the Silly Isles, sorry to our views in the Silly Isles, can indeed meet up indoors and have sex with each other.
Congratulations.
Yeah.
It's ridiculous.
But, just to say, again, I have to stress, I don't think the government should be able to do this.
No, definitely not.
This is absurd.
Anyway, I saw a super chat there that I'm looking forward to answering.
A bit up.
We've gone too far.
Up, up, up.
Up a bit.
That one, yep.
Adam says, now make it so their parents can't consent in their place.
Either only a trained medical professional and a clinical psychologist can advise an adult.
Shaker Silver says, worst thing going for people with gender dysphoria is the trans trenders, like the non-binary trans, who aren't just 100% conforming to gender roles.
Yeah, I think that these people are essentially just attention seekers.
Who maybe haven't made a movie in about three years and find themselves kind of lacking the spotlights and maybe just decide to come out and say actually I'm a man.
And so their gay wife is now straight.
I don't know how that works, but I guess we'll ask Mr.
Elliot Page about that tomorrow.
Bull Moose, where is the tea review?
It's three years overdue.
Well, Bull Moose, right?
I never forgot about the tea review, and we actually have a lovely selection of exotic teas...
And a nice tea set.
So that'll be premium content.
If you'd like to go to loadseaters.com and sign up to watch the tea review, you can.
Loadseaters.com is actually live.
It's all working apart from the confirmation email to let you know you've signed up, but you will have signed up.
We are working on getting that fixed, and there is lots of premium content up there already, including a couple of articles by one Hannah Gall, formerly of the, well, she works for the Times of Israel, I think it is.
And she's contributed a bunch of pieces for us.
There's one about Jordan Peterson that I found particularly interesting, incidentally.
And coincidentally, Wolfsbane says, Are you going to do a video on the hypocrisy of the backlash to Peterson's new book, I Hate Men, versus I Hate Men by that new French author?
I wasn't planning to, because that I Hate Men by that French author, the I don't know if you've followed this or anything, but she's come out with the edgy 2012 take that some feminists hate men.
Was she the person who was on the BBC recently?
Probably, yeah.
And I think the book only sold about 500 copies.
Yeah, she's just not very important because she's riding a wave that crashed about eight years ago.
Dunking on feminists who are saying, I hate men, is something we did in 2014.
It's the old news now.
Yeah, exactly.
That got old, man.
The fact that she's still saying, yeah, but I actually really hate men, it's like, well, good for you.
You're like the memory meme of, you know, has any woman made me apologize for making me a misogynist?
It's like, well, no.
Where are the professional misogynist cards then, Sargon?
Good question.
We do have something like that, actually.
Kamikaze Komi says, you still think Destiny is a good guy after he admitted to getting you de-platformed?
Well, de-platformed from what?
But no, I don't think he's a good guy.
But I mean, why would anyone think he's a good guy?
I just think he's interesting to talk to.
Moose on the Loose says, so the treatment for most mental illnesses is confrontation, but for gender dysphoria, everyone around you must be enablers.
What do you make of that?
That sounds relatively reasonable, although some disorders are worse than others, and some require more confrontation than others, and it's quite often...
When you say confrontation, I assume this is some psychological term that...
Not necessarily, I was just using the term that they were using there, but...
For example, if you were depressed, you wouldn't necessarily be compelled to seek medical help because...
But you wouldn't expect people around you to go, yeah, you know, it's good that you're depressed.
Carry on being depressed.
You should be more depressed.
How can we help you?
I'm no expert on it, but it strikes me that maybe trying to encourage people to identify more with the sex that they are, rather than encouraging them to actually take physical action against their own body to change into something they're not...
It strikes me as being more reasonable.
That's certainly how I see it.
God damn it.
All of the women are turning against me.
This is unacceptable.
Years.
Josh is handsome, but don't feel bad, Carl.
You're still the sexiest man on the internet to me.
Oh, well, actually, no, sorry, sorry.
Thank you.
In your face, Josh.
Thank you, Years.
I appreciate that.
Danix says, this podcast has made my remote work lunch break much more enjoyable.
It's informative and importantly employs critical thinking.
You deserve these Merkel shekels.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Yeah, 21 euros as well.
Thank you.
Present-elect Splatnik sends us five Aussie bucks.
Dude, you're going to need them to bribe the prison guards.
Not a banned account says, testing for COVID, leading cause in the rise of cases.
Nicholas Fitzgerald says, can you discuss the pseudoscience that surrounds COVID-19?
For example, the idea that testing more equals a rise in cases.
Honestly, I'm not an expert on it.
And I'd have to go and do a lot of research on it.
So what I'm going to do is pass that off to Josh.
That's your job now.
Okay.
I'm also not an expert in it, but I'll do my best.
Okay, great.
Hobo Frodo says, All this UK tyranny reminds me of a rather catchy song.
Perhaps you've heard of it.
Come out, you black and tans.
Come out and fight me like a man.
Disavow.
Not that Silicon Valley's going to pick up on that one.
They're not going to know anything about that.
No, definitely not.
But just in case one day they do, disavow.
But it's staggering.
The fact that the government are like, yeah, well, we're going to tell you who you can and can't have sex with.
We're going to prevent pubs from selling you beer.
Unreal.
Unreal.
And this is a great point by Brian here actually.
There are about 7,500 alcohol related deaths per year in the UK. If banning alcohol saves 1,000 COVID deaths, why not ban it permanently and save 7,500?
Well, that's a great question.
I think...
Preventable deaths.
These are the words that Mark Chancellor Drakeford used.
I think it's the distinction between positive and negative liberty, isn't it?
It is.
It is, but the rationale is correct.
You can't...
If you are concerned about preventable deaths, then we need to, as they say, ban alcohol, because there are definitely preventable deaths caused by the sale of alcohol, which then leads us on to, like, fatty foods, sugar.
Oh, my God.
You know, sugar...
Driving.
You know, suddenly there are loads of preventable deaths that we need to ban things for.
And yeah, obviously we shouldn't ban anything.
Grant says, Carmate, I meant the other plebs, not the pretty much.
Also, your mic is peaking.
See, that's for you to know, John.
Love your work.
Brits and Aussies against the bloody commies.
Also get razorfist on.
I would love to get razorfist on.
DeWall says, I get the feeling a lot of the virus lockdown is a distraction.
Carl, have they removed that private military force from the public buildings yet, as well as the concrete barriers?
Private military force?
I don't know what they mean.
I'm afraid I'm not aware of what you're talking about.
Yeah, this was...
There was a great piece of graffiti in the Hong Kong...
I think China is probably one of the biggest threats to world peace.
Exactly, yeah.
Matthew Hammond, how many married couples will spice things up by separating only to meet up for illicit sexual encounters?
Well done, Matt Hancock.
You've got people going in the bedroom again by telling them they're not allowed.
Well done.
Good job.
Blaise Stone says, Canada HCW here.
Long time listener, first time caller.
Can you explain the COVID restrictions rationale?
Oh, can explain the COVID restrictions rationale if you want.
Even though I agree with you about the restrictions.
Sure, send us an email or something.
I'd love to hear, like, contact at lowseaters.com.
And I'd love to hear what the rationale is.
Because the Conservatives are very, very light on reasoning when it comes to all of this.
I think the original rationale for lockdowns and kind of restrictions was to flatten the curve, wasn't it?
Protect the NHS. But now it's control the virus and defeat the virus.
It's like...
Okay.
But Stratos Radio Blue says, I can't believe the government is allowed to control almost all levels of sausage use.
Hashtag freedom for schlong.
Well, I mean, allowed is the key word here, isn't it?
I mean, nobody's standing up to it and saying no.
Deplorable Pirate Captain says, James O'Keefe didn't yeet himself.
Oh, he hasn't been banned, does he?
The Civic Nationalist says, the government cannot stop me having sex with whoever wants to.
If they do, I can just say I'm protesting for BLM, God save the Queen.
I mean, they unironically will take action against you, though.
The new Hugo looks taller and less Mexican.
You look Mexican?
Since when?
I mean, you're very well-travelled, Hugo, I've got to say.
James Hayes says, off to see my girlfriend I haven't seen in two months because of lockdown.
I'd like to see Matt Hancock try to stop me shagging my missus.
But the thing is, if he pops up in the window and is tapping, disapprovingly looking at you, don't be surprised.
Once on PC, have you got a license for that sex?
And you'll be like, I actually don't.
What if you have a debate with Vorsch about puberty blockers?
He thinks they're harmless.
I want hard evidence of their interference with people.
There is Harvard evidence.
Yeah, there certainly is.
It's pretty easy to find as well.
Yeah, he just doesn't want to see it.
Thank you on the road for the donation.
And eSpyGuy says, Computing Forever has done some great work on the coof.
Why don't you get him on your show?
Your country is a postage stamp.
Can't you just walk over?
No, I think you'd have to fly.
But I don't know what the lockdown situation in Ireland is like, actually.
I can't imagine it's much better than in Wales or Scotland.
But yeah, I mean, now that we're out of lockdown, we probably can get guests on.
So we'll definitely do what we can there.
Do you think that the military officer slash politician swing clubs are following COVID-19 lockdowns?
No!
I bet they're still serving alcohol with their meals.
Red Fox Moon.
Oh my god, you are such a simp.
Josh is definitely the most posh and handsome one over at the Lotus Eaters.
But Carl, you'll forever be Daddy Sargon.
Well, thank you, but stop being a simp for Josh.
Honestly.
Carry on.
He is the eunuch.
In regards to lockdown, those willing to trade liberty for security shall lose both and deserve neither.
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was indeed right.
But I hate the formulation.
I hate the deserve.
It's not that they deserve.
It's not that they're going to get it.
You know, you're going to get neither.
But anyway, thank you everyone for joining us.
And we will be back tomorrow talking about...
What was it I was going to talk about?
Australia.
That was it.
Australia and presumably whatever the Conservative government is going to prevent us from having sex with tomorrow as well.
▲
Export Selection