BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules
It is understood employees in news and current affairs have been told that they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their jobs if they attend LGBT events
According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.
The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.
Asked for clarity on confusion, BBC said pride is fine if it is seen as a “a celebration”, but if the “trans issue" (as it was described) is involved then it passes as a protest and news and current affairs staff should not attend.
This clarification doesn't help. More to the point, news and current affairs staff SHOULD be present TO FUCKING OBSERVE AND REPORT ON NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS.
Are Trans people not allowed to have pride?
No. Is the clear answer here.
This stance is not going to age well. Once trans rights get the same heft as gay rights and ethnic minority rights people and organisations saying stuff like "teach the debate" are going to look like real pieces of shit.
I like your optimism.
I think it's far more likely I'll find myself against a wall in the next decade than having my right to live respected.
Especially with previous comments from "allies" in this thread telling me we need to listen to the terfs and respect their points of view and "detoxify" the "debate".
No one in this thread said anything of the sort to you. Maybe stop attacking people who are on your side and direct it at the people who are actually saying those things?
towards the end of this. The context is that the labour MP for canterbury is a terf running her mouth 24/7 on twitter. Two of her staff have quit over it, and she went on a tirade about it, outing one of them in the process.
All he said there was "we need to detoxify the debate". Without a bit more to go on your interpretation seems to be jumping the gun a bit.
You agreed with Starmer's quote here when he said those exact words.
BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules
It is understood employees in news and current affairs have been told that they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their jobs if they attend LGBT events
According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.
The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.
Asked for clarity on confusion, BBC said pride is fine if it is seen as a “a celebration”, but if the “trans issue" (as it was described) is involved then it passes as a protest and news and current affairs staff should not attend.
This clarification doesn't help. More to the point, news and current affairs staff SHOULD be present TO FUCKING OBSERVE AND REPORT ON NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS.
Are Trans people not allowed to have pride?
No. Is the clear answer here.
This stance is not going to age well. Once trans rights get the same heft as gay rights and ethnic minority rights people and organisations saying stuff like "teach the debate" are going to look like real pieces of shit.
I like your optimism.
I think it's far more likely I'll find myself against a wall in the next decade than having my right to live respected.
Especially with previous comments from "allies" in this thread telling me we need to listen to the terfs and respect their points of view and "detoxify" the "debate".
No one in this thread said anything of the sort to you. Maybe stop attacking people who are on your side and direct it at the people who are actually saying those things?
towards the end of this. The context is that the labour MP for canterbury is a terf running her mouth 24/7 on twitter. Two of her staff have quit over it, and she went on a tirade about it, outing one of them in the process.
All he said there was "we need to detoxify the debate". Without a bit more to go on your interpretation seems to be jumping the gun a bit.
You agreed with Starmer's quote here when he said those exact words.
I'm not doing this conversation with you again where you wilfully misinterpret, outright fabricate things and generally stomp around calling everyone TERFs. It's disingenuous, tedious and done in bad faith. I'm out.
I'm with jaziek. You can't 'detoxify' a debate where one side are eliminationists - it's very existence is toxic. Fence sitting and trying to placate the transphobic brigade is just very-fine-peopleing the issue. I can see what starmer is trying to do, but that statement was gross.
'detoxifying the debate' assumes there is a valid debate to be had. There isn't, and anyone who says there is is either very ignorant of the topic or a straight up bigot.
Starmer fucked up there and it's important to recognise that
It's not enough for the Labour party to be doing anything less than 100% getting behind trans rights IMO. The first thing we need to be doing is that, the second thing is admitting that we have a big problem with TERFs and that includes the left as well. When the Guardian has prominent TERFs writing opinion pieces for it, there is a big problem
The idea that transphobia will 'age badly' is adorably naïve when the last decade has only seen transphobia take a deep, rotten root in the country across all parties.
Even if you want to cling to "well all the progress will eventually work out" the blasé nature of that statement is gross in the face of trans people having to continually defend their rights to live right now.
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) says there are around four times as many people catching Covid than anticipated.
A "reasonable worst-case scenario" is used by officials and the NHS to plan for the months ahead.
It had estimated 85,000 deaths from Covid over the course of winter.
But an official Sage document, dated 14 October and published today, reveals we are in a worse position than expected.
Scientists crunching the numbers estimated that, by mid-October, there were between 43,000 and 74,000 people being infected with coronavirus every day in England.
Their report said: "This is significantly above the profile of the reasonable worst-case scenario, where the number of daily infections in England remained between 12,000-13,000 throughout October."
It added that the number of people with Covid needing hospital care is already higher than the winter plan and deaths will "almost certainly" exceed the plan in the next two weeks.
Yeah, I don't see us getting through November without a national lockdown. If we do, it feels like we'll have an even longer one in December, which I'm sure will be even more popular.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+5
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
National lockdown should be inevitable, but it does seem like Boris et al are going to have be dragged kicking and screaming.
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+4
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) says there are around four times as many people catching Covid than anticipated.
A "reasonable worst-case scenario" is used by officials and the NHS to plan for the months ahead.
It had estimated 85,000 deaths from Covid over the course of winter.
But an official Sage document, dated 14 October and published today, reveals we are in a worse position than expected.
Scientists crunching the numbers estimated that, by mid-October, there were between 43,000 and 74,000 people being infected with coronavirus every day in England.
Their report said: "This is significantly above the profile of the reasonable worst-case scenario, where the number of daily infections in England remained between 12,000-13,000 throughout October."
It added that the number of people with Covid needing hospital care is already higher than the winter plan and deaths will "almost certainly" exceed the plan in the next two weeks.
Yeah, I don't see us getting through November without a national lockdown. If we do, it feels like we'll have an even longer one in December, which I'm sure will be even more popular.
Well, cancelling Christmas has historical president and sure doesn't everyone love Cromwell....
With what I saw today, I'm not in the least bit surprised. I had to go into town for the first time in months to get cat litter today, for the first time since before lockdown in fact, and there were hordes of people everywhere, fuck all social distancing, maybe 10% of people wearing masks even on a heaving pedestrian precinct. In the pet shop, of course, it was all masks, but I went in, got what I needed, chucked it in the boot of my car and got the fuck out and got home. I was bloody horrified. Seeing that news alert pop up on my phone was not a surprise after that.
With what I saw today, I'm not in the least bit surprised. I had to go into town for the first time in months to get cat litter today, for the first time since before lockdown in fact, and there were hordes of people everywhere, fuck all social distancing, maybe 10% of people wearing masks even on a heaving pedestrian precinct. In the pet shop, of course, it was all masks, but I went in, got what I needed, chucked it in the boot of my car and got the fuck out and got home. I was bloody horrified. Seeing that news alert pop up on my phone was not a surprise after that.
i work retail and the amount of people who come in everyday without a mask is astounding, some are amazed they actually have to. Not to mention the idiots who just walk around with their mask in their pocket and only pull it out to be served, then they take it off and stick it back in the pocket.
The public are idiots
+10
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited October 2020
from unsourced leaks sounds like no.10 are considering adding a tier 4 - full lockdown - and are considering going back on what they said on thursday as far as tightening measures goes
needless to say this is contra the cabinet briefing today
this is of course inevitable as the numbers are rapidly getting worse and the rate of improvement is not fast enough, even in the heavily affected areas, so we are merely waiting for them to be smacked in the face by the obvious
With what I saw today, I'm not in the least bit surprised. I had to go into town for the first time in months to get cat litter today, for the first time since before lockdown in fact, and there were hordes of people everywhere, fuck all social distancing, maybe 10% of people wearing masks even on a heaving pedestrian precinct. In the pet shop, of course, it was all masks, but I went in, got what I needed, chucked it in the boot of my car and got the fuck out and got home. I was bloody horrified. Seeing that news alert pop up on my phone was not a surprise after that.
i work retail and the amount of people who come in everyday without a mask is astounding, some are amazed they actually have to. Not to mention the idiots who just walk around with their mask in their pocket and only pull it out to be served, then they take it off and stick it back in the pocket.
The public are idiots
this is of course, partly the joke. if it was the case that the gov had any reason to believe their non-lockdown measures were doing anything then their position would make sense... but they have the exact opposite. even trivial measures like, as you observe, mask wearing are basically ignored in london. so why the pretense?
they have been told, over and over, that reductions in growth rate are disproportionately effective when done early in a logarithmic growth process. and yet. and yet. and yet...
they know, and have been told, that lockdowns early are shorter and less damaging, as it takes less time to get back to a containable size. and yet. and yet..
ministers angry they found out about this from other sources rather than cabinet meeting. how are they surprised that the government is incompetently run at this point, even at the level of executing the basics of cabinet government? have they been in a foreign country for the last 5 years?
surrealitycheck on
+7
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
Remember the "Eat out to help out" scheme the tories were so proud of? Well, an academic study has estimated that 8-17% of all new local infection clusters between 3rd and 31st of August. It comes as absolutely no surprise as eating inside a restaurant was found to be one of the riskier activities in terms of spreading the virus. The authour suggests that the scheme helped to seed the second wave across the country.
I'm not qualified enough to provide an opinion on the mothodology, but here's the authour (Thiemo Fetzer, Associate Professor in Economics, University of Warwick) and report:
Personal feeling is that the scheme was stupid, the epitome of a scheme designed to give money to the middle classes and a significant factor in spreading the virus. Compare it with refusing to fund free school meals for underprivelidged children.
I wonder if they'll offer any help to the businesses that have to shut down during the lockdo-HAHAHA I'm sorry, I couldn't get through that with a straight face.
The restrictions could see everything except nurseries, schools, universities and non-essential shops close until Dec 1
Why the fuck are they so adamant that universities keep their campuses open
We can teach online! We've spent all of summer preparing for the possibility of teaching exclusively online! The unions and SAGE have been screaming that we need to teach online! Some of us have already transitioned to teaching online!
Merkel basically said in the press conference for the new lockdown(*-ish) measures starting monday in Germany
"We had to wait until enough people would accept the measures".. While it would've been more sensible to have the lockdown* earlier, if enough people don't perceive it as sensible, they'll behave like idiots and prevent it from working.
Too late, though, and your hospitals get overwhelmed.
Why the fuck are they so adamant that universities keep their campuses open
Is there a thing with students not being eligible for tuition reimbursement after a certain cutoff date?
Luckily, a bunch of students at our uni opted to switch to online teaching in the past month (and I think it's been going pretty well)
I'm a bit worried about the safety of some of our students who are very eager to keep going to classes on campus and (reasonably?) assume this is safe as the uni is still open... I don't think it's occurred to them the government may not have their best interest at heart : /
(luckily no actual outbreak on our campus yet so, hopefully, no harm will come to them...... : / )
Good timing. I found out yesterday that my manager at work had spend 2 hours on Tuesday in a small room working alongside a guy who tested positive for Covid yesterday morning. And she’s been told to stay in work unless she shows symptoms.
Needless to say, the rest of my team were THRILLED to find we were sharing a small, non-ventilated room with someone who has been exposed.
Plus I can cancel my day off for my Xbox delivery on the 10th.
Why the fuck are they so adamant that universities keep their campuses open
Is there a thing with students not being eligible for tuition reimbursement after a certain cutoff date?
Luckily, a bunch of students at our uni opted to switch to online teaching in the past month (and I think it's been going pretty well)
I'm a bit worried about the safety of some of our students who are very eager to keep going to classes on campus and (reasonably?) assume this is safe as the uni is still open... I don't think it's occurred to them the government may not have their best interest at heart : /
(luckily no actual outbreak on our campus yet so, hopefully, no harm will come to them...... : / )
Universities need to show that enrolled students have commenced their course and participated up until a certain date (which is in December, I think, for English unis) in order to claim the element of funding that comes from government
It is not obvious if you can do this if the student isn't physically attending where the course was conceived as in person, and the regulations aren't clear enough on this point (which is an issue the universities have been shouting about for a long time)
Clarification was sought from government in April but not received. The suggestion is that the government is reluctant to give it because the uncertainty puts pressure on the universities to continue face to face teaching (this probably isn't as sinister as it sounds, more dysfunctional: in practice, answering the question of whether students will be funded if they transfer to online learning is de facto telling the unis to do so. What's probably happening is the funding body reckons that such a decision is outwith the scope of their authority, has escalated to cabinet, and not got an answer)
For the good of the country, we simply must pretend there is nothing wrong for as long as possible!
Only until the thing you’re ignoring affects London, at which point they lurch into action in the most ham-fisted way possible.
I’m reminded of the story we were told in school about the building of the underground sewers in Victorian London.
The Thames was used as a dump for peoples piss and shit, and was overflowing, causing all sorts of diseases.
Parliament refused to do anything, until it got to the stage they could smell the stench in Parliament itself, at which point they decided Something Must Be Done, shook their magic money tree, and funded the building of the sewers, at tremendous cost.
TBH I'm teaching online this semester so am not affected by this personally, but there are staff teaching face-to-face in one of my classes so...
I'd rather if we could all switch online at this point
: / - especially after reading stuff like this...
Johnson is holding a presser at 4pm, presumably to talk lockdown. Apparently number 10 is so fuming that the plans got "leaked" they're launching an inquiry, too.
Why the fuck are they so adamant that universities keep their campuses open
Is there a thing with students not being eligible for tuition reimbursement after a certain cutoff date?
Luckily, a bunch of students at our uni opted to switch to online teaching in the past month (and I think it's been going pretty well)
I'm a bit worried about the safety of some of our students who are very eager to keep going to classes on campus and (reasonably?) assume this is safe as the uni is still open... I don't think it's occurred to them the government may not have their best interest at heart : /
(luckily no actual outbreak on our campus yet so, hopefully, no harm will come to them...... : / )
Universities need to show that enrolled students have commenced their course and participated up until a certain date (which is in December, I think, for English unis) in order to claim the element of funding that comes from government
It is not obvious if you can do this if the student isn't physically attending where the course was conceived as in person, and the regulations aren't clear enough on this point (which is an issue the universities have been shouting about for a long time)
Clarification was sought from government in April but not received. The suggestion is that the government is reluctant to give it because the uncertainty puts pressure on the universities to continue face to face teaching (this probably isn't as sinister as it sounds, more dysfunctional: in practice, answering the question of whether students will be funded if they transfer to online learning is de facto telling the unis to do so. What's probably happening is the funding body reckons that such a decision is outwith the scope of their authority, has escalated to cabinet, and not got an answer)
As far as I understand it, there are also issues with a) remote students being awarded a lower level of student loan, and it's not incredibly clear whether a forced transition from blended to remote would necessitate that shift, as well as b) pressure from student bodies to receive tuition fee refunds already due to the combination of strikes last year and Covid disruption that would just be worsened by a shift to pure remote learning.
None of this is unresolvable but it would be substantially easier to answer if the government was actually engaging with the sector. I'm fairly high up in teaching admin at my department and we've heard nothing official about the vaguely suggested two week quarantine at the end of this calendar year, for instance.
Johnson is holding a presser at 4pm, presumably to talk lockdown. Apparently number 10 is so fuming that the plans got "leaked" they're launching an inquiry, too.
I always find it amusing that when a purge of a leak is instigated, the purge attempt is immediately leaked.
Because nothing inspires loyalty among low level staffers more, than demands of loyalty, on pain of purge.
Loyalty is like respect. You can't demand it. You earn it.
We are entering a month long lockdown in Germany. ):
one leg hip thrusts from deficit, two leg hip thrusts with legs at a wide enough angle you feel glute engagement, most likely with a weight on midsection (bag of books can do at a pinch)
then one and 2-leg squats (pistols / shrimp / single leg tuck for the singles, two-leg just depends on biomechanics and existing strength)
one-leg deadlifts
lunges (forward back side, best done in sets alternating legs)
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited October 2020
what is interesting is that to an extent this is a government shaped by one problem: brexit. they have, so far, been able to systematically ignore "expert" advice in all aspects and reduce the entire question to a purely political one. the only point that they have had to face any potential consequences was the election, and they passed it.
what this has done is generate a group of people who default to political answers to questions of fact, because in the case of brexit so far it has worked
but covid is quite different. these instincts and styles of party management and government are leading them badly astray, and this confidence has run them head first into a question of fact that is not waiting until the end of january 2021 to make its reality known. and the result is, predictably, embarrassing
Thanks for the additional clarification @Burnage - the info I'm getting from course admins and management at my own institution is kind of vague so it's really valuable to hear your take on this
Posts
I guess the school dinners thing cut through a little. This is from before the latest kerfuffle, obviously.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
You agreed with Starmer's quote here when he said those exact words.
I'm not doing this conversation with you again where you wilfully misinterpret, outright fabricate things and generally stomp around calling everyone TERFs. It's disingenuous, tedious and done in bad faith. I'm out.
Starmer fucked up there and it's important to recognise that
It's not enough for the Labour party to be doing anything less than 100% getting behind trans rights IMO. The first thing we need to be doing is that, the second thing is admitting that we have a big problem with TERFs and that includes the left as well. When the Guardian has prominent TERFs writing opinion pieces for it, there is a big problem
Even if you want to cling to "well all the progress will eventually work out" the blasé nature of that statement is gross in the face of trans people having to continually defend their rights to live right now.
edit: This is how you detoxify the debate.
Well, cancelling Christmas has historical president and sure doesn't everyone love Cromwell....
Steam | XBL
i work retail and the amount of people who come in everyday without a mask is astounding, some are amazed they actually have to. Not to mention the idiots who just walk around with their mask in their pocket and only pull it out to be served, then they take it off and stick it back in the pocket.
The public are idiots
needless to say this is contra the cabinet briefing today
this is of course inevitable as the numbers are rapidly getting worse and the rate of improvement is not fast enough, even in the heavily affected areas, so we are merely waiting for them to be smacked in the face by the obvious
this is of course, partly the joke. if it was the case that the gov had any reason to believe their non-lockdown measures were doing anything then their position would make sense... but they have the exact opposite. even trivial measures like, as you observe, mask wearing are basically ignored in london. so why the pretense?
they have been told, over and over, that reductions in growth rate are disproportionately effective when done early in a logarithmic growth process. and yet. and yet. and yet...
they know, and have been told, that lockdowns early are shorter and less damaging, as it takes less time to get back to a containable size. and yet. and yet..
ministers angry they found out about this from other sources rather than cabinet meeting. how are they surprised that the government is incompetently run at this point, even at the level of executing the basics of cabinet government? have they been in a foreign country for the last 5 years?
surprised pikachu face etc
I'm not qualified enough to provide an opinion on the mothodology, but here's the authour (Thiemo Fetzer, Associate Professor in Economics, University of Warwick) and report:
Personal feeling is that the scheme was stupid, the epitome of a scheme designed to give money to the middle classes and a significant factor in spreading the virus. Compare it with refusing to fund free school meals for underprivelidged children.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Why the fuck are they so adamant that universities keep their campuses open
We can teach online! We've spent all of summer preparing for the possibility of teaching exclusively online! The unions and SAGE have been screaming that we need to teach online! Some of us have already transitioned to teaching online!
This is just maddening.
Fuckholes
Waiting until the hospitals are at capacity means you're several fucking weeks too late.
"We had to wait until enough people would accept the measures".. While it would've been more sensible to have the lockdown* earlier, if enough people don't perceive it as sensible, they'll behave like idiots and prevent it from working.
Too late, though, and your hospitals get overwhelmed.
That's their pandemic response in a nutshell. Do something only when it's slapping them in the face with a brick.
Everything else has been grift, half arsed or stupid.
Luckily, a bunch of students at our uni opted to switch to online teaching in the past month (and I think it's been going pretty well)
I'm a bit worried about the safety of some of our students who are very eager to keep going to classes on campus and (reasonably?) assume this is safe as the uni is still open... I don't think it's occurred to them the government may not have their best interest at heart : /
(luckily no actual outbreak on our campus yet so, hopefully, no harm will come to them...... : / )
Good timing. I found out yesterday that my manager at work had spend 2 hours on Tuesday in a small room working alongside a guy who tested positive for Covid yesterday morning. And she’s been told to stay in work unless she shows symptoms.
Needless to say, the rest of my team were THRILLED to find we were sharing a small, non-ventilated room with someone who has been exposed.
Plus I can cancel my day off for my Xbox delivery on the 10th.
Universities need to show that enrolled students have commenced their course and participated up until a certain date (which is in December, I think, for English unis) in order to claim the element of funding that comes from government
It is not obvious if you can do this if the student isn't physically attending where the course was conceived as in person, and the regulations aren't clear enough on this point (which is an issue the universities have been shouting about for a long time)
Clarification was sought from government in April but not received. The suggestion is that the government is reluctant to give it because the uncertainty puts pressure on the universities to continue face to face teaching (this probably isn't as sinister as it sounds, more dysfunctional: in practice, answering the question of whether students will be funded if they transfer to online learning is de facto telling the unis to do so. What's probably happening is the funding body reckons that such a decision is outwith the scope of their authority, has escalated to cabinet, and not got an answer)
Only until the thing you’re ignoring affects London, at which point they lurch into action in the most ham-fisted way possible.
I’m reminded of the story we were told in school about the building of the underground sewers in Victorian London.
The Thames was used as a dump for peoples piss and shit, and was overflowing, causing all sorts of diseases.
Parliament refused to do anything, until it got to the stage they could smell the stench in Parliament itself, at which point they decided Something Must Be Done, shook their magic money tree, and funded the building of the sewers, at tremendous cost.
TBH I'm teaching online this semester so am not affected by this personally, but there are staff teaching face-to-face in one of my classes so...
I'd rather if we could all switch online at this point
: / - especially after reading stuff like this...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/31/universities-sidelined-covid-science-says-academics-leader
Steam | XBL
As far as I understand it, there are also issues with a) remote students being awarded a lower level of student loan, and it's not incredibly clear whether a forced transition from blended to remote would necessitate that shift, as well as b) pressure from student bodies to receive tuition fee refunds already due to the combination of strikes last year and Covid disruption that would just be worsened by a shift to pure remote learning.
None of this is unresolvable but it would be substantially easier to answer if the government was actually engaging with the sector. I'm fairly high up in teaching admin at my department and we've heard nothing official about the vaguely suggested two week quarantine at the end of this calendar year, for instance.
I always find it amusing that when a purge of a leak is instigated, the purge attempt is immediately leaked.
Because nothing inspires loyalty among low level staffers more, than demands of loyalty, on pain of purge.
Loyalty is like respect. You can't demand it. You earn it.
We are entering a month long lockdown in Germany. ):
one leg hip thrusts from deficit, two leg hip thrusts with legs at a wide enough angle you feel glute engagement, most likely with a weight on midsection (bag of books can do at a pinch)
then one and 2-leg squats (pistols / shrimp / single leg tuck for the singles, two-leg just depends on biomechanics and existing strength)
one-leg deadlifts
lunges (forward back side, best done in sets alternating legs)
godspeed
MP for Cardiff South & Penarth.
Steam | XBL
what this has done is generate a group of people who default to political answers to questions of fact, because in the case of brexit so far it has worked
but covid is quite different. these instincts and styles of party management and government are leading them badly astray, and this confidence has run them head first into a question of fact that is not waiting until the end of january 2021 to make its reality known. and the result is, predictably, embarrassing
I really want to move to New Zealand now.
Thanks for the additional clarification @Burnage - the info I'm getting from course admins and management at my own institution is kind of vague so it's really valuable to hear your take on this
Tier 4PM or Tier 5PM
I wish we could get a lockdown where I live. Even the travel restrictions you get at highest tier would be welcome.
God
I hate them so much. I really do. I really hope that every single one of those fuckers burns in hell