On another subject, another thing this shows is that local media isn't dead yet. My view - and this is blether rather than me knowing what I'm talking about - is that the MEN is more influential in GM than any of the national papers. I'm sure the same is true of the Echo on Merseyside, the Chronicle in the North East, the Yorkshire Post in Yorkshire, and so on. This makes me happy and slightly proud for reasons I can't quite place.
Jennifer Williams is a very fine journalist. I have been following her work for a while. Well worth reading.
Did you see Simon Reeve’s new show, ‘The Lakes’ at the weekend? All about Cumbria
I didn't even know of its existence. But thank you. I will look out for it.
We watched the first episode last night - featured a woman who hunts grey squirrels and makes Waistcoats, fishing tackle, and curry out of them!
Was that the one that then went on to feature the nicer parts of Barrow-in-Furness?
If Johnson had had any sense at all (don't laugh there please, I did say 'if') then he would have cancelled the southern part of HS2 and kept the bits from Birmingham northwards.
If the eastern leg is cancelled, the Birmingham interchange station ain’t gonna get as much use. If you were to design from scratch, it would probably be scrapped.
This is the problem when you dick around with infrastructure projects half way through.
Had the Transport Ministry had a sudden influx of staff from Defence Procurement ?
The eastern leg hasn't been cancelled, it's merely be shortened to a field somewhere near Eastern Midlands Airport...
"Please board the air replacement service to Leeds-Bradford. On landing, you will discover a complete lack of transport infrastructure connecting to either Leeds or Bradford"
Please don't remind me - When we occasional fly from Leeds Bradford I'm never sure if the most terrifying bit is a particularly bad junction on the way in from Harrogate or the fact the plane may lands sideways due to the wind.
If Johnson had had any sense at all (don't laugh there please, I did say 'if') then he would have cancelled the southern part of HS2 and kept the bits from Birmingham northwards.
If the eastern leg is cancelled, the Birmingham interchange station ain’t gonna get as much use. If you were to design from scratch, it would probably be scrapped.
This is the problem when you dick around with infrastructure projects half way through.
Had the Transport Ministry had a sudden influx of staff from Defence Procurement ?
The eastern leg hasn't been cancelled, it's merely be shortened to a field somewhere near Eastern Midlands Airport...
"Please board the air replacement service to Leeds-Bradford. On landing, you will discover a complete lack of transport infrastructure connecting to either Leeds or Bradford"
Please don't remind me - When we occasional fly from Leeds Bradford I'm never sure if the most terrifying bit is a particularly bad junction on the way in from Harrogate or the fact the plane may lands sideways due to the wind.
Landing sideways; reminds me of Alderney.
It's one of those airports where you do wonder - who on earth thought this was a good location..
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Wasn't there a plague as well? And some pretty crap weather?
Ian Dale on Politics Live says that members of staff at Sky were livid that they were cutting the sound on the Rafiq testimony today. Apparently Sky played it unfiltered after they had complaints from their staff.
Did they cover the bit when Rafiq criticised David Lloyd?
I haven't seen the testimony myself, just heard what Dale said about it.
On the Digital Spy thread, it was suggested that Lloyd tried to influence journalists into playing down the allegations.
Back when the Tiger Woods infidelity allegations came out (12 years ago now!) there was an interview with an ex-golfing journalist who had tried to write a story on Woods, many years before. Woods' management got to hear about it, and the golfing journalist was immediately an ex-golfing journalist. Others received threats about losing access if they wrote stories.
Threats to journalists can work, sadly.
Didn't some journalists have their careers ruined over Lance Armstrong?
It wouldn't surprise me. But wasn't that a slightly different situation? From memory, allegations had always surrounded Armstrong, and he had always been cleared. That makes writing 'the truth' somewhat harder - especially given his backstory wrt cancer.
Everybody, even if only tangentially involved, in pro cycling knew exactly what was going on with Lance. And every other GC contender before and after him. It was way more encompassing than just not reporting on Lance.
I remember watching the Tour in a shared house in the early 90's and someone there had been a keen amateur competitor but had given it up. She told me that they all had their little medical kits and that it was all fake. Rather naively I couldn't quite believe that they were all cheats, but she was of course right.
It isn't just cycling that had (or has) an Omerta though.
With regard to the cricket, I wonder if it isn't really drinking culture that is at the heart of this. If you aren't a drinker, then you can never be 'part of the team'. The clubhouse is never quite separated from the competitive sport.
What sad little people if the only way they can socialise is by getting pissed.
As a non-drinker I agree, but that's the way it is. You are immediately marked as an outsider.
If you also happen to have a different skin colour then so much the worse, it seems.
It's not so much getting pissed, but pub culture. The cameraderie of the pub, where real-world problems can be abandoned for a few hours, there is assumed freedom to talk about things in a way you normally wouldn't, etc. But equally difficult for someone from a different culture to fit in, or a non-drinker.
It's not pub culture it is British culture. As an example, go online to any greetings card company. 80% of the cards will be something to do with drinking extraordinary amounts (usually of gin). It is something that we do and we do to excess. Perhaps the reason was the pub opening times era when people felt obligated to drink as much as possible as their time was limited to do so.
Drinking too much is seen as somehow heroic and not sordid - look at the synonyms - plastered, sozzled, battered, blotto, bladdered, caned, off your face (can be used for other drugs), rat-arsed, slaughtered, etc, etc.
It is a rite of passage for Brits. That cafe culture never arrived.
Actually I was chatting to a friend the other day whose daughter had just started Uni and he said how he expected her to get drunk and was in a way relieved that it was a relatively "healthy" way of letting off steam and, er, getting off your face.
"we" ?
It's a subset of British culture, not the definition.
People who get bladdered for no reason have always been idiots, as they continue to be now.
Why? It's possible to get bladdered for "no reason" and be an entirely benign drunk, and have fun. I see this post has been liked by NPXMP. In a very important debate about racism are we heading headlong down authoritarian alley?
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Wasn't there a plague as well?
Yep I did mention those in my first paragraph. At least 3 major plagues which swept through the Empire in the mid to late 4th century.
Ian Dale on Politics Live says that members of staff at Sky were livid that they were cutting the sound on the Rafiq testimony today. Apparently Sky played it unfiltered after they had complaints from their staff.
Did they cover the bit when Rafiq criticised David Lloyd?
I haven't seen the testimony myself, just heard what Dale said about it.
On the Digital Spy thread, it was suggested that Lloyd tried to influence journalists into playing down the allegations.
Back when the Tiger Woods infidelity allegations came out (12 years ago now!) there was an interview with an ex-golfing journalist who had tried to write a story on Woods, many years before. Woods' management got to hear about it, and the golfing journalist was immediately an ex-golfing journalist. Others received threats about losing access if they wrote stories.
Threats to journalists can work, sadly.
Didn't some journalists have their careers ruined over Lance Armstrong?
It wouldn't surprise me. But wasn't that a slightly different situation? From memory, allegations had always surrounded Armstrong, and he had always been cleared. That makes writing 'the truth' somewhat harder - especially given his backstory wrt cancer.
Everybody, even if only tangentially involved, in pro cycling knew exactly what was going on with Lance. And every other GC contender before and after him. It was way more encompassing than just not reporting on Lance.
I remember watching the Tour in a shared house in the early 90's and someone there had been a keen amateur competitor but had given it up. She told me that they all had their little medical kits and that it was all fake. Rather naively I couldn't quite believe that they were all cheats, but she was of course right.
It isn't just cycling that had (or has) an Omerta though.
With regard to the cricket, I wonder if it isn't really drinking culture that is at the heart of this. If you aren't a drinker, then you can never be 'part of the team'. The clubhouse is never quite separated from the competitive sport.
What sad little people if the only way they can socialise is by getting pissed.
As a non-drinker I agree, but that's the way it is. You are immediately marked as an outsider.
If you also happen to have a different skin colour then so much the worse, it seems.
It's not so much getting pissed, but pub culture. The cameraderie of the pub, where real-world problems can be abandoned for a few hours, there is assumed freedom to talk about things in a way you normally wouldn't, etc. But equally difficult for someone from a different culture to fit in, or a non-drinker.
It's not pub culture it is British culture. As an example, go online to any greetings card company. 80% of the cards will be something to do with drinking extraordinary amounts (usually of gin). It is something that we do and we do to excess. Perhaps the reason was the pub opening times era when people felt obligated to drink as much as possible as their time was limited to do so.
Drinking too much is seen as somehow heroic and not sordid - look at the synonyms - plastered, sozzled, battered, blotto, bladdered, caned, off your face (can be used for other drugs), rat-arsed, slaughtered, etc, etc.
It is a rite of passage for Brits. That cafe culture never arrived.
Actually I was chatting to a friend the other day whose daughter had just started Uni and he said how he expected her to get drunk and was in a way relieved that it was a relatively "healthy" way of letting off steam and, er, getting off your face.
"we" ?
It's a subset of British culture, not the definition.
People who get bladdered for no reason have always been idiots, as they continue to be now.
Well that's the point isn't it. No one gets bladdered for no reason. There is always a reason and it's interesting to think what it might be.
And as for "we" yes I'm afraid so. You are a Brit, the culture undeniably exists, and hence it is your culture also.
Being sanctimonious is also a British trait.
There is a drinking culture in this country but compared to some we’re amateurs. Russia in particular. When I was there I was astounded. They drink like they don’t want to live.
Good luck to OLB. Like him, my COVID started as a bit of a sore throat. Unlike him, all I did during the period I probably caught it was go to work (in a pretty covid-safe environment), a bit of shopping and meet with my running club (outdoors).
Cold symptoms got worse again yesterday evening. However I slept much better, not disturbed by fever, and slept through to about 9.30.
I now have a pulse oxymeter. It was a healthy 99 yesterday afternoon however it was 97 yesterday evening and I have just tested at 95. Hope this isn't a trend, however I don't feel breathless and haven't really been coughing.
At the start of the pandemic, @Foxy advised us to get a pulse oximeter. His advice was if oxygen saturation goes below 93 call 999.
The NHS are now giving them out with exactly that advice (and to phone 111 if under 95). Actually this morning it showed 92/93 and then crept up to 95. Within an hour it was back to 97 though.
Not sure if this is for everyone or because I should be on the higher risk list (heart murmur). They advise you to keep using it for 14 days, in case of relapse.
Ian Dale on Politics Live says that members of staff at Sky were livid that they were cutting the sound on the Rafiq testimony today. Apparently Sky played it unfiltered after they had complaints from their staff.
Did they cover the bit when Rafiq criticised David Lloyd?
I haven't seen the testimony myself, just heard what Dale said about it.
On the Digital Spy thread, it was suggested that Lloyd tried to influence journalists into playing down the allegations.
Back when the Tiger Woods infidelity allegations came out (12 years ago now!) there was an interview with an ex-golfing journalist who had tried to write a story on Woods, many years before. Woods' management got to hear about it, and the golfing journalist was immediately an ex-golfing journalist. Others received threats about losing access if they wrote stories.
Threats to journalists can work, sadly.
Didn't some journalists have their careers ruined over Lance Armstrong?
It wouldn't surprise me. But wasn't that a slightly different situation? From memory, allegations had always surrounded Armstrong, and he had always been cleared. That makes writing 'the truth' somewhat harder - especially given his backstory wrt cancer.
Everybody, even if only tangentially involved, in pro cycling knew exactly what was going on with Lance. And every other GC contender before and after him. It was way more encompassing than just not reporting on Lance.
I remember watching the Tour in a shared house in the early 90's and someone there had been a keen amateur competitor but had given it up. She told me that they all had their little medical kits and that it was all fake. Rather naively I couldn't quite believe that they were all cheats, but she was of course right.
It isn't just cycling that had (or has) an Omerta though.
With regard to the cricket, I wonder if it isn't really drinking culture that is at the heart of this. If you aren't a drinker, then you can never be 'part of the team'. The clubhouse is never quite separated from the competitive sport.
What sad little people if the only way they can socialise is by getting pissed.
As a non-drinker I agree, but that's the way it is. You are immediately marked as an outsider.
If you also happen to have a different skin colour then so much the worse, it seems.
It's not so much getting pissed, but pub culture. The cameraderie of the pub, where real-world problems can be abandoned for a few hours, there is assumed freedom to talk about things in a way you normally wouldn't, etc. But equally difficult for someone from a different culture to fit in, or a non-drinker.
It's not pub culture it is British culture. As an example, go online to any greetings card company. 80% of the cards will be something to do with drinking extraordinary amounts (usually of gin). It is something that we do and we do to excess. Perhaps the reason was the pub opening times era when people felt obligated to drink as much as possible as their time was limited to do so.
Drinking too much is seen as somehow heroic and not sordid - look at the synonyms - plastered, sozzled, battered, blotto, bladdered, caned, off your face (can be used for other drugs), rat-arsed, slaughtered, etc, etc.
It is a rite of passage for Brits. That cafe culture never arrived.
Actually I was chatting to a friend the other day whose daughter had just started Uni and he said how he expected her to get drunk and was in a way relieved that it was a relatively "healthy" way of letting off steam and, er, getting off your face.
"we" ?
It's a subset of British culture, not the definition.
People who get bladdered for no reason have always been idiots, as they continue to be now.
Why? It's possible to get bladdered for "no reason" and be an entirely benign drunk, and have fun. I see this post has been liked by NPXMP. In a very important debate about racism are we heading headlong down authoritarian alley?
I tend to agree, depending what one means by "bladdered." And what's a reason? One's birthday? Boat Race day?
Good luck to OLB. Like him, my COVID started as a bit of a sore throat. Unlike him, all I did during the period I probably caught it was go to work (in a pretty covid-safe environment), a bit of shopping and meet with my running club (outdoors).
Cold symptoms got worse again yesterday evening. However I slept much better, not disturbed by fever, and slept through to about 9.30.
I now have a pulse oxymeter. It was a healthy 99 yesterday afternoon however it was 97 yesterday evening and I have just tested at 95. Hope this isn't a trend, however I don't feel breathless and haven't really been coughing.
At the start of the pandemic, @Foxy advised us to get a pulse oximeter. His advice was if oxygen saturation goes below 93 call 999.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Although 409/410 is the date traditionally given for the end of Roman rule, there seems evidence that the inhabitants still thought of themselves as part of the Roman Empire past this date. The impression I get is of Roman rule just fading away throughout the Fifth century, across Western Europe, rather than there being any specific date when it ended. Although he was based in Noricum, I think the Life of St, Severinus gives and idea of what Britain would have been like. There were units of the Roman Army still stationed there into the 470's which gradually disbanded due to lack of pay, before Odoacer evacuated the population.
Ian Dale on Politics Live says that members of staff at Sky were livid that they were cutting the sound on the Rafiq testimony today. Apparently Sky played it unfiltered after they had complaints from their staff.
Did they cover the bit when Rafiq criticised David Lloyd?
I haven't seen the testimony myself, just heard what Dale said about it.
On the Digital Spy thread, it was suggested that Lloyd tried to influence journalists into playing down the allegations.
Back when the Tiger Woods infidelity allegations came out (12 years ago now!) there was an interview with an ex-golfing journalist who had tried to write a story on Woods, many years before. Woods' management got to hear about it, and the golfing journalist was immediately an ex-golfing journalist. Others received threats about losing access if they wrote stories.
Threats to journalists can work, sadly.
Didn't some journalists have their careers ruined over Lance Armstrong?
It wouldn't surprise me. But wasn't that a slightly different situation? From memory, allegations had always surrounded Armstrong, and he had always been cleared. That makes writing 'the truth' somewhat harder - especially given his backstory wrt cancer.
Everybody, even if only tangentially involved, in pro cycling knew exactly what was going on with Lance. And every other GC contender before and after him. It was way more encompassing than just not reporting on Lance.
I remember watching the Tour in a shared house in the early 90's and someone there had been a keen amateur competitor but had given it up. She told me that they all had their little medical kits and that it was all fake. Rather naively I couldn't quite believe that they were all cheats, but she was of course right.
It isn't just cycling that had (or has) an Omerta though.
With regard to the cricket, I wonder if it isn't really drinking culture that is at the heart of this. If you aren't a drinker, then you can never be 'part of the team'. The clubhouse is never quite separated from the competitive sport.
What sad little people if the only way they can socialise is by getting pissed.
As a non-drinker I agree, but that's the way it is. You are immediately marked as an outsider.
If you also happen to have a different skin colour then so much the worse, it seems.
It's not so much getting pissed, but pub culture. The cameraderie of the pub, where real-world problems can be abandoned for a few hours, there is assumed freedom to talk about things in a way you normally wouldn't, etc. But equally difficult for someone from a different culture to fit in, or a non-drinker.
I am sure this is an issue. I've seen Muslim football fans awkwardly watching a game in a pub (because they couldn't see it anywhere else?). Surrounded by booze, and boozers, and not exactly comfortable
How do you bridge the gulf?
And yet I have been out with many Muslim friends over the years who were quite happy to sit in the pub and drink alcohol free or soft drinks. I assume they were not as committed as some but they were religious enough to not want to drink alcohol so I assumed that was kind of the norm - don't drink it yourself but no issue with others drinking it.
Quite. So long as everyone is respecting each other it works great.
Though that thought does prompt a vague memory of some manufactured outrage going over Johnson once for mentioning alcohol in a Sikh gurdwara, as if religious prohibition over it meant even mention of booze was a no no. He might even have apologised if memory serves. It just made me think why that would offend someone even if it was an odd location to mention it.
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Wasn't there a plague as well?
Yep I did mention those in my first paragraph. At least 3 major plagues which swept through the Empire in the mid to late 4th century.
Sorry, I'm catching up and missed it. Apologies.
I seem to recall, too, that there was a volcanic eruption somewhere at about that time which severely disrupted the climate.
Owen Paterson would have been nine days into his suspension had Boris Johnson just left this alone. Instead the government has blown a hole in the bank accounts of the MPs already most inclined to rebellion. #politics #strategy #whipping https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1460633324414722058
I thought 3) in that Tweet was already against the rules as per the committee ruling over Paterson?
This is getting funnier by the day.
He's royally stuffed some of his key and veteran backbenchers. Done like kippers unless there is some weasel way out in the final draftings.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
On another subject, another thing this shows is that local media isn't dead yet. My view - and this is blether rather than me knowing what I'm talking about - is that the MEN is more influential in GM than any of the national papers. I'm sure the same is true of the Echo on Merseyside, the Chronicle in the North East, the Yorkshire Post in Yorkshire, and so on. This makes me happy and slightly proud for reasons I can't quite place.
Jennifer Williams is a very fine journalist. I have been following her work for a while. Well worth reading.
Did you see Simon Reeve’s new show, ‘The Lakes’ at the weekend? All about Cumbria
I didn't even know of its existence. But thank you. I will look out for it.
We watched the first episode last night - featured a woman who hunts grey squirrels and makes Waistcoats, fishing tackle, and curry out of them!
Was that the one that then went on to feature the nicer parts of Barrow-in-Furness?
Yes that’s it. The young man at the farm as Uniondivvie mentioned too
Ian Dale on Politics Live says that members of staff at Sky were livid that they were cutting the sound on the Rafiq testimony today. Apparently Sky played it unfiltered after they had complaints from their staff.
Did they cover the bit when Rafiq criticised David Lloyd?
I haven't seen the testimony myself, just heard what Dale said about it.
On the Digital Spy thread, it was suggested that Lloyd tried to influence journalists into playing down the allegations.
Back when the Tiger Woods infidelity allegations came out (12 years ago now!) there was an interview with an ex-golfing journalist who had tried to write a story on Woods, many years before. Woods' management got to hear about it, and the golfing journalist was immediately an ex-golfing journalist. Others received threats about losing access if they wrote stories.
Threats to journalists can work, sadly.
Didn't some journalists have their careers ruined over Lance Armstrong?
It wouldn't surprise me. But wasn't that a slightly different situation? From memory, allegations had always surrounded Armstrong, and he had always been cleared. That makes writing 'the truth' somewhat harder - especially given his backstory wrt cancer.
Everybody, even if only tangentially involved, in pro cycling knew exactly what was going on with Lance. And every other GC contender before and after him. It was way more encompassing than just not reporting on Lance.
I remember watching the Tour in a shared house in the early 90's and someone there had been a keen amateur competitor but had given it up. She told me that they all had their little medical kits and that it was all fake. Rather naively I couldn't quite believe that they were all cheats, but she was of course right.
It isn't just cycling that had (or has) an Omerta though.
With regard to the cricket, I wonder if it isn't really drinking culture that is at the heart of this. If you aren't a drinker, then you can never be 'part of the team'. The clubhouse is never quite separated from the competitive sport.
What sad little people if the only way they can socialise is by getting pissed.
As a non-drinker I agree, but that's the way it is. You are immediately marked as an outsider.
If you also happen to have a different skin colour then so much the worse, it seems.
It's not so much getting pissed, but pub culture. The cameraderie of the pub, where real-world problems can be abandoned for a few hours, there is assumed freedom to talk about things in a way you normally wouldn't, etc. But equally difficult for someone from a different culture to fit in, or a non-drinker.
It's not pub culture it is British culture. As an example, go online to any greetings card company. 80% of the cards will be something to do with drinking extraordinary amounts (usually of gin). It is something that we do and we do to excess. Perhaps the reason was the pub opening times era when people felt obligated to drink as much as possible as their time was limited to do so.
Drinking too much is seen as somehow heroic and not sordid - look at the synonyms - plastered, sozzled, battered, blotto, bladdered, caned, off your face (can be used for other drugs), rat-arsed, slaughtered, etc, etc.
It is a rite of passage for Brits. That cafe culture never arrived.
Actually I was chatting to a friend the other day whose daughter had just started Uni and he said how he expected her to get drunk and was in a way relieved that it was a relatively "healthy" way of letting off steam and, er, getting off your face.
"we" ?
It's a subset of British culture, not the definition.
People who get bladdered for no reason have always been idiots, as they continue to be now.
Why? It's possible to get bladdered for "no reason" and be an entirely benign drunk, and have fun. I see this post has been liked by NPXMP. In a very important debate about racism are we heading headlong down authoritarian alley?
I tend to agree, depending what one means by "bladdered." And what's a reason? One's birthday? Boat Race day?
Well exactly. Well put. If my friends are over for the weekend is that a "reason"? What about if my wife and I have a Saturday where my son is away and do a pub walk that ends up being more pub than walk? Is that a "reason"?
On another subject, another thing this shows is that local media isn't dead yet. My view - and this is blether rather than me knowing what I'm talking about - is that the MEN is more influential in GM than any of the national papers. I'm sure the same is true of the Echo on Merseyside, the Chronicle in the North East, the Yorkshire Post in Yorkshire, and so on. This makes me happy and slightly proud for reasons I can't quite place.
Jennifer Williams is a very fine journalist. I have been following her work for a while. Well worth reading.
Did you see Simon Reeve’s new show, ‘The Lakes’ at the weekend? All about Cumbria
I didn't even know of its existence. But thank you. I will look out for it.
We watched the first episode last night - featured a woman who hunts grey squirrels and makes Waistcoats, fishing tackle, and curry out of them!
Was that the one that then went on to feature the nicer parts of Barrow-in-Furness?
That must have been a short segment.
Fighting talk! There is actually a surprising amount of interest there and some beautiful parts.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
Yes
Starmer was in the process of a press conference about second jobs, while Boris had written to the Speaker proposing much the same and as the BBC have just said the release of the letter on twitter by Boris just at the time of the speech caught Starmer unawares and politics is a cruel game at times
Oh and remind me to pop to Tesco's later would you? I have never agreed with boycotts of businesses in any way even if I think they are being stupid (which I don't in this case). It always gives me great pleasure to disrupt boycotts by patronising those establishments which are the target - all the better if I would not normally shop there.
On a more serious note, my indomitable grandfather, whose (legal) job in the 30s was in Germany, took great pleasure in seeking out Jewish shops being picketed by stormtroopers and thank them courteously when he came out, laden with goods, for drawing his attention to them. He said the trick was to appear to be sincerely appreciative - "they were too surprised to turn violent".
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
Incidentally, I wonder if all this rail cancellation is going to do Sunak's chances any good.
It is the Treasury which is stopping this spending, isn't it. That's down to Sunak, no. If so, torpedoing the Tories' chance of reinventing themselves as a more Northern party is not very sensible. The risk is that they lose those voters but don't get back any more voters in the South either.
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Wasn't there a plague as well?
Yep I did mention those in my first paragraph. At least 3 major plagues which swept through the Empire in the mid to late 4th century.
Sorry, I'm catching up and missed it. Apologies.
I seem to recall, too, that there was a volcanic eruption somewhere at about that time which severely disrupted the climate.
Here is the Wiki. Slightly later. But probably put the pretty lid on top of all that.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
That certainly sounds "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense.
Something else he hasn't thought through no doubt.....
The right thing to do - but you're right it will p*ss off a lot of older Tory MPs....
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
That certainly sounds "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense.
Something else he hasn't thought through no doubt.....
The right thing to do - but you're right it will p*ss off a lot of older Tory MPs....
Incidentally, I wonder if all this rail cancellation is going to do Sunak's chances any good.
It is the Treasury which is stopping this spending, isn't it. That's down to Sunak, no. If so, torpedoing the Tories' chance of reinventing themselves as a more Northern party is not very sensible. The risk is that they lose those voters but don't get back any more voters in the South either.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
Incidentally, I wonder if all this rail cancellation is going to do Sunak's chances any good.
It is the Treasury which is stopping this spending, isn't it. That's down to Sunak, no. If so, torpedoing the Tories' chance of reinventing themselves as a more Northern party is not very sensible. The risk is that they lose those voters but don't get back any more voters in the South either.
While it's down to Sunak, he won't be the person presenting it - he has way too much sense to do that.
Last week was 33.1K cases. In recent days we have been up ~8K cases compared with the previous week. It is only one day but it could be a sign of the increase in cases slowing. A back from half-term surge and then a slow down would make sense.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
Oh and remind me to pop to Tesco's later would you? I have never agreed with boycotts of businesses in any way even if I think they are being stupid (which I don't in this case). It always gives me great pleasure to disrupt boycotts by patronising those establishments which are the target - all the better if I would not normally shop there.
On a more serious note, my indomitable grandfather, whose (legal) job in the 30s was in Germany, took great pleasure in seeking out Jewish shops being picketed by stormtroopers and thank them courteously when he came out, laden with goods, for drawing his attention to them. He said the trick was to appear to be sincerely appreciative - "they were too surprised to turn violent".
At Brighton Uni a decade ago, the hard left teachers told the students to boycott Tesco because it was run by Jews
Incidentally, I wonder if all this rail cancellation is going to do Sunak's chances any good.
It is the Treasury which is stopping this spending, isn't it. That's down to Sunak, no. If so, torpedoing the Tories' chance of reinventing themselves as a more Northern party is not very sensible. The risk is that they lose those voters but don't get back any more voters in the South either.
Seems quite possible. Still may be far enough ahead to get through this time, but weakening in the south and reversal, to some extent, in the north would be very powerful if it becomes a trend.
If Johnson had had any sense at all (don't laugh there please, I did say 'if') then he would have cancelled the southern part of HS2 and kept the bits from Birmingham northwards.
If the eastern leg is cancelled, the Birmingham interchange station ain’t gonna get as much use. If you were to design from scratch, it would probably be scrapped.
This is the problem when you dick around with infrastructure projects half way through.
Had the Transport Ministry had a sudden influx of staff from Defence Procurement ?
The eastern leg hasn't been cancelled, it's merely be shortened to a field somewhere near Eastern Midlands Airport...
"Please board the air replacement service to Leeds-Bradford. On landing, you will discover a complete lack of transport infrastructure connecting to either Leeds or Bradford"
Please don't remind me - When we occasional fly from Leeds Bradford I'm never sure if the most terrifying bit is a particularly bad junction on the way in from Harrogate or the fact the plane may lands sideways due to the wind.
Landing sideways; reminds me of Alderney.
‘Sainte-Anne International’, if you please.
Lol. I’ve landed a light aircraft there myself several times.
Indeed it was flying back from there that i first spotted my current town as an interesting looking place to live.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Last week was 33.1K cases. In recent days we have been up ~8K cases compared with the previous week. It is only one day but it could be a sign of the increase in cases slowing. A back from half-term surge and then a slow down would make sense.
Last week was 33.1K cases. In recent days we have been up ~8K cases compared with the previous week. It is only one day but it could be a sign of the increase in cases slowing. A back from half-term surge and then a slow down would make sense.
And regardless of the recent surge, Delta is still exhausting the reservoir of uninfected kids, plus booster rollout increasing. I'm cautiously hopeful of a fresh downturn within the next week or so. And hospitalisations may not head upwards, anyway, as the older ages never had an upturn and the booster programme is belatedly accelerating.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
If Johnson had had any sense at all (don't laugh there please, I did say 'if') then he would have cancelled the southern part of HS2 and kept the bits from Birmingham northwards.
If the eastern leg is cancelled, the Birmingham interchange station ain’t gonna get as much use. If you were to design from scratch, it would probably be scrapped.
This is the problem when you dick around with infrastructure projects half way through.
Had the Transport Ministry had a sudden influx of staff from Defence Procurement ?
The eastern leg hasn't been cancelled, it's merely be shortened to a field somewhere near Eastern Midlands Airport...
"Please board the air replacement service to Leeds-Bradford. On landing, you will discover a complete lack of transport infrastructure connecting to either Leeds or Bradford"
Please don't remind me - When we occasional fly from Leeds Bradford I'm never sure if the most terrifying bit is a particularly bad junction on the way in from Harrogate or the fact the plane may lands sideways due to the wind.
Despite living in West Yorkshire I have only flown out of Leeds-Bradford once ( I prefer Manchester). On my return we were diverted to Newcastle because L-B was too dangerous.
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Wasn't there a plague as well?
Yep I did mention those in my first paragraph. At least 3 major plagues which swept through the Empire in the mid to late 4th century.
Sorry, I'm catching up and missed it. Apologies.
I seem to recall, too, that there was a volcanic eruption somewhere at about that time which severely disrupted the climate.
Here is the Wiki. Slightly later. But probably put the pretty lid on top of all that.
Incidentally, I wonder if all this rail cancellation is going to do Sunak's chances any good.
It is the Treasury which is stopping this spending, isn't it. That's down to Sunak, no. If so, torpedoing the Tories' chance of reinventing themselves as a more Northern party is not very sensible. The risk is that they lose those voters but don't get back any more voters in the South either.
While it's down to Sunak, he won't be the person presenting it - he has way too much sense to do that.
Well, if I can spot it others will be able to as well. And some of them might well be Northern Tory MPs, who have a vote in any leadership election.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Last week was 33.1K cases. In recent days we have been up ~8K cases compared with the previous week. It is only one day but it could be a sign of the increase in cases slowing. A back from half-term surge and then a slow down would make sense.
According to the dashboard Tue 9 Nov was 41,191 ?
That's specimen date which is better to use on a longer term basis. For quick comparisons when the data comes out it is easier to compare the reported figure. Some cause of optimism in my view.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
Keir’s speech was attempting to force Boris into the very u-turn he just made. That’s a win for Keir.
The fact you think that Boris’s attempt to “no, I dump YOU!” scores him any points is very touching.
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Although 409/410 is the date traditionally given for the end of Roman rule, there seems evidence that the inhabitants still thought of themselves as part of the Roman Empire past this date. The impression I get is of Roman rule just fading away throughout the Fifth century, across Western Europe, rather than there being any specific date when it ended. Although he was based in Noricum, I think the Life of St, Severinus gives and idea of what Britain would have been like. There were units of the Roman Army still stationed there into the 470's which gradually disbanded due to lack of pay, before Odoacer evacuated the population.
There is evidence that RB control/lifestyle continued along some parts of the Thames Valley almost to the end of the 5th century and a lot of this is put down to the presence of established Germanic communities of foederati who may have been second or third generation within the Roman Empire by then but were still able to negotiate with the new Germanic settlers coming in. There are also indications of Roman Cirencester being cleaned and repaired for several decades after the supposed withdrawal. Gildas is supposed to have been taught Latin there in the late 5th century.
BBC News still going for "214 deaths today compared to 47 yesterday" line.
I found myself watching the news from one of the main German channels yesterday and they used a graphic comparing their own data week on week.
How is it that the British media still haven't understood that day to day isn't comparable 20 months in?
Because the British Media doesn't employ anyone with any maths let alone statistical skills?
You don't even need maths. You just need some sort of basic ability to recognise a pattern. Some sort of curiousity. You'd have thought it would be a prerequisite for a journalist.
They're either stupid, or mendacious. (Though I can't rule out the possibility that both are true.) How are they never challenged on this?
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
Keir’s speech was attempting to force Boris into the very u-turn he just made. That’s a win for Keir.
The fact you think that Boris’s attempt to “no, I dump YOU!” scores him any points is very touching.
A more adult PM would have given SKS advance notice of his intention.
Last week was 33.1K cases. In recent days we have been up ~8K cases compared with the previous week. It is only one day but it could be a sign of the increase in cases slowing. A back from half-term surge and then a slow down would make sense.
According to the dashboard Tue 9 Nov was 41,191 ?
By specimen date, by reporting date it was 33k, Tuesday backfills Sunday, Wednesday backfills Monday etc...
If Sunday was going to be up as much as the rest of the week then we'd have expected England cases to come in at 3k higher, that it isn't is a good sign but it could also be reporting lag or just noise. The England hospitalisation numbers are probably the best we've seen for a while, down in the 600s and falling for admissions, in hospital numbers also falling which means the funnel is still negative despite rising cases last week.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
BigG should have a spot on GB News where he regularly summarises the day’s news as a “terrible night for Keir/Labour/LD” etc.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
Telling it as it is upsets Labour supporters is hardly news
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
Telling it as it is upsets Labour supporters is hardly news
I’m not a Labour supporter and it was a HYUFD-level bad take.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
Telling it as it is upsets Labour supporters is hardly news
You mean like the Standards Commissioner telling off the Shadow Home Secretary dominated the front pages for days?
Oh and remind me to pop to Tesco's later would you? I have never agreed with boycotts of businesses in any way even if I think they are being stupid (which I don't in this case). It always gives me great pleasure to disrupt boycotts by patronising those establishments which are the target - all the better if I would not normally shop there.
On a more serious note, my indomitable grandfather, whose (legal) job in the 30s was in Germany, took great pleasure in seeking out Jewish shops being picketed by stormtroopers and thank them courteously when he came out, laden with goods, for drawing his attention to them. He said the trick was to appear to be sincerely appreciative - "they were too surprised to turn violent".
To me it seems bloody stupid timing for the PM to do the reversal just as the LOTO is about to speak. All it means is that Starmer's reaction to the reversal is the primary thing the news are sharing rather than it being the PM's initiative.
If the PM wanted to do this he should have done it this morning or overnight at which point it'd have been leading the headlines as the PM's initiative rather than Starmer leading the headlines.
Seems like terrible, terrible media management. Have I missed anything there?
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
Telling it as it is upsets Labour supporters is hardly news
Nope - all Boris did was time his letter publication as a spoiler - which SKS probably half expected.
Last week was 33.1K cases. In recent days we have been up ~8K cases compared with the previous week. It is only one day but it could be a sign of the increase in cases slowing. A back from half-term surge and then a slow down would make sense.
According to the dashboard Tue 9 Nov was 41,191 ?
By specimen date, by reporting date it was 33k, Tuesday backfills Sunday, Wednesday backfills Monday etc...
If Sunday was going to be up as much as the rest of the week then we'd have expected England cases to come in at 3k higher, that it isn't is a good sign but it could also be reporting lag or just noise. The England hospitalisation numbers are probably the best we've seen for a while, down in the 600s and falling for admissions, in hospital numbers also falling which means the funnel is still negative despite rising cases last week.
My favourite short term measure is comparing cases by specimen date from two days ago with those from nine days ago. Obviously those from two days ago are incomplete, but not terribly incomplete. If the data from two days ago is above that from nine days ago we're going up. If it is more than 20% below nine days ago, we're going down. In the middle it's a grey area. By this measure we're going up, but not by that much, and hardly at all in some regions. It's only really the southern half of the country where we are unambiguously seeing a rise. My guess is less than a week until this mini-wave tops out.
"France clears Dunkirk migrant camp amid UK tensions"
I think we underestimate the salience of this whole story, and how damaging it is for HMG. We Brexited to Take Control of our Borders. What is the damn point if we then Lose Control of our Borders.
I am sure this is as much to blame for Boris' recent woes as all the sleaze. Meanwhile Poland looks firm and tough, refusing to let people cross the border illegally, even as we dutifully ferry people to Dover to have pizza on our sixpence
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Although 409/410 is the date traditionally given for the end of Roman rule, there seems evidence that the inhabitants still thought of themselves as part of the Roman Empire past this date. The impression I get is of Roman rule just fading away throughout the Fifth century, across Western Europe, rather than there being any specific date when it ended. Although he was based in Noricum, I think the Life of St, Severinus gives and idea of what Britain would have been like. There were units of the Roman Army still stationed there into the 470's which gradually disbanded due to lack of pay, before Odoacer evacuated the population.
There is evidence that RB control/lifestyle continued along some parts of the Thames Valley almost to the end of the 5th century and a lot of this is put down to the presence of established Germanic communities of foederati who may have been second or third generation within the Roman Empire by then but were still able to negotiate with the new Germanic settlers coming in. There are also indications of Roman Cirencester being cleaned and repaired for several decades after the supposed withdrawal. Gildas is supposed to have been taught Latin there in the late 5th century.
I think urban life continued in Verulamium well past 410, as well as Wroxeter, Bath, Chester, and Exeter. But, I imagine there was increasing disorder as warlords, both RB and German, battled for supremacy.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
Keir’s speech was attempting to force Boris into the very u-turn he just made. That’s a win for Keir.
The fact you think that Boris’s attempt to “no, I dump YOU!” scores him any points is very touching.
The problem is the media presentation of how it happened ( not mine) does use words like torpedoed and caught unawares seems to have really upset the opposition supporters
"France clears Dunkirk migrant camp amid UK tensions"
I think we underestimate the salience of this whole story, and how damaging it is for HMG. We Brexited to Take Control of our Borders. What is the damn point if we then Lose Control of our Borders.
I am sure this is as much to blame for Boris' recent woes as all the sleaze. Meanwhile Poland looks firm and tough, refusing to let people cross the border illegally, even as we dutifully ferry people to Dover to have pizza on our sixpence
Not good optics. Not good at all
We're not giving them pizzas, we're giving them Dominos, which is a crime against humanity.
A former Tory MP in one of my WhatsApp groups messages
'If Sir Graham Brady doesn't have enough letter to trigger a VONC he certainly will now after this [the banning of lobbying].'
Obviously bad news for Sir Keir.
If any troughers want a VONC because they can't be paid to be lobbyists then are they fit to be MPs?
There is some karmic justice it seems that those who organised the pressure to save Paterson seem to be those who'll suffer now due to the lobbying ban. Karma's a bitch really.
To me it seems bloody stupid timing for the PM to do the reversal just as the LOTO is about to speak. All it means is that Starmer's reaction to the reversal is the primary thing the news are sharing rather than it being the PM's initiative.
If the PM wanted to do this he should have done it this morning or overnight at which point it'd have been leading the headlines as the PM's initiative rather than Starmer leading the headlines.
Seems like terrible, terrible media management. Have I missed anything there?
Yes,
1) Boris only does things when he has no choices left and what's left is unavoidable. 2) Boris and No 10 have been crap at media management for years and definitely since Dominic left.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
Telling it as it is upsets Labour supporters is hardly news
BigG is Mr objective, never promoting an angle. Chuckle.
A former Tory MP in one of my WhatsApp groups messages
'If Sir Graham Brady doesn't have enough letter to trigger a VONC he certainly will now after this [the banning of lobbying].'
Obviously bad news for Sir Keir.
Surely the letters won't be being sent now - but they will be being prepared ready for the first justification that would allow them to be sent without them appearing to be self-serving.
Eric Topol @EricTopol · 43m How long will it last? Nobody knows for sure yet. But let's hope Israel is right again: "By analyzing the antibody levels, researchers have concluded that the third shot could be effective for 9 – 10 months, or even longer."
===
Hope so. I don't want 24 hours of feeling shit again in the Spring for 4th booster.
To me it seems bloody stupid timing for the PM to do the reversal just as the LOTO is about to speak. All it means is that Starmer's reaction to the reversal is the primary thing the news are sharing rather than it being the PM's initiative.
If the PM wanted to do this he should have done it this morning or overnight at which point it'd have been leading the headlines as the PM's initiative rather than Starmer leading the headlines.
Seems like terrible, terrible media management. Have I missed anything there?
Yes,
1) Boris only does things when he has no choices left and what's left is unavoidable. 2) Boris and No 10 have been crap at media management for years and definitely since Dominic left.
The media management was better I thought from after Dom left until about August or so.
All through the vaccine bounce the media management was pretty good. In the last few weeks the wheels seem to have truly come off.
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
BigG should have a spot on GB News where he regularly summarises the day’s news as a “terrible night for Keir/Labour/LD” etc.
I would suggest you listen to BBC or Sky for their reporting of this afternoon events and as far as GB news is concerned I never watch it
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
BigG should have a spot on GB News where he regularly summarises the day’s news as a “terrible night for Keir/Labour/LD” etc.
I would suggest you listen to BBC or Sky for their reporting of this afternoon events and as far as GB news is concerned I never watch it
I had Sky on and they were sharing Keir's reaction to the news on camera allowing him to get his spin on it out first. That was surely a good thing for Keir?
A former Tory MP in one of my WhatsApp groups messages
'If Sir Graham Brady doesn't have enough letter to trigger a VONC he certainly will now after this [the banning of lobbying].'
Obviously bad news for Sir Keir.
The question surely is, if Sir Graham gets enough letters, will Boris fight or flee? If he fights the Parliamentary Conservative party will be a battleground for weeks. If he flees, his supporters in the country will be up in arms. And if he flees, what will Carrie say? Or do?
Owen Paterson would have been nine days into his suspension had Boris Johnson just left this alone. Instead the government has blown a hole in the bank accounts of the MPs already most inclined to rebellion. #politics #strategy #whipping https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1460633324414722058
I thought 3) in that Tweet was already against the rules as per the committee ruling over Paterson?
This is getting funnier by the day.
He's royally stuffed some of his key and veteran backbenchers. Done like kippers unless there is some weasel way out in the final draftings.
Hasn't Johnson been forced to agree with the position that he previously whipped his MPs to disagree with?
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
Yes
Starmer was in the process of a press conference about second jobs, while Boris had written to the Speaker proposing much the same and as the BBC have just said the release of the letter on twitter by Boris just at the time of the speech caught Starmer unawares and politics is a cruel game at times
But won't the public still be reeling from your revelation of last week that Nick Thomas Symonds reported Tory sleaze to the authorities SEVERAL times rather than just once?
King Cole, the bit after the Western Empire falls and before the Norman Conquest (especially pre-Alfred) is not the most popular in history for the general public.
What annoys me is every single damned documentary or drama (well, the vast majority) are fixated retelling stories of Henry VIII and Elizabeth II when (even just looking at England) there are so many more interesting and neglected events and characters to consider.
"The Vikings" did rather well from depicting the period, and the spin off "Vikings: Valhalla" covering the later period before the Norman conquest looks promising.
The period that seems to be lacking is the early post Roman period. In a generation or two, we abandoned roads, towns and the trappings of urban life, turning back to subsistence farming and more egalitarian social structures.
Perhaps we can find out about the latter in person, second time around?
The Dark Ages were only dark in the sense of the abandonment of Christianity, and also literacy. It happened between 409 and 450 or so, so a couple of generations. There seems surprisingly little evidence of resistance to going back to a simpler more sustainable communitarian lifestyle once the Romans stopped enforcing the alternative.
Who abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so? Not really my period.
(or is that the joke I just edited out?) (Blockquote maybe borked warning)
The reason that there was little resistance was that when armed, competent invaders showed up, the locals had next to no military capability. Sharp swords make sharp arguments.
The process of robbing the locals when you felt like it, evolved into "You can't tax those peasants. They are my peasants"....
You could call that an egalitarian social structure. Depends which end of the sword you are holding, I suppose.
But who (or where) abandoned Christianity in 409->450 or so?
New one to me as well - in England, the Saxons who turned up to occupy senior management positions after the Romans divested their offshore holdings were initially pagan, but converted fairly rapidly to Christianity....
It seems very early for that.
Even the Edict of Milan (Constantine) wasn't until 313 (?) AD.
I've always associated Dark Ages with a period in either the second part of the first millenium 1000 AD, or a period in the middle ages, which is why I'm asking.
Dark Ages to me means that period when the absence of Christianity/literacy means there was a bit of a lacuna in recorded history. In England a relatively short period maybe AD400 - 800. We really know very little about the end of Roman Britain and the Germanic settlers had started to make their presence known. In Scandinavia it is different: not a lot is known pre 1000 or so, and in Sweden everything before 1200 might as well be Prehistory.
The absence of a real written record tells its own story of economic collapse and population decline, IMHO.
It would these days when literacy is universal. But remember in early Western Europe, literacy was a Roman thing, perpetuated by the Church. The withdrawal of Roman control over the British provinces probably did result in economic decline, but I am not so sure about population. At least one usurper may have marched off to Europe with a sizeable army, but the Romans had been settling Germanic foederati here for some time and there was obviously an influx of settlers. At that time, human population density seems to suggest that most places weren't fully exploited and there was room for settlers.
I think the evidence from archaeology these days is pretty clear there was a significant decline in population when the Romans left or rather when the links with the Empire were severed. This was on top of major declines due to plagues throughout the 4th century.
Basically the Romans had cleared much of the settlement from southern and Eastern Britain and brought it into the Villa Landscape which covered the whole south-eastern half of the country. There is little evidence of native, non-Roman settlements in the RB period in those areas. When the Villa landscape collapsed because it lost its markets in the cities and internationally, there seems to have been a rapid drop in rural population. I envisage that much of the late 5th and early 6th century migration by the Germanic tribes was into a largely empty landscape.
Although 409/410 is the date traditionally given for the end of Roman rule, there seems evidence that the inhabitants still thought of themselves as part of the Roman Empire past this date. The impression I get is of Roman rule just fading away throughout the Fifth century, across Western Europe, rather than there being any specific date when it ended. Although he was based in Noricum, I think the Life of St, Severinus gives and idea of what Britain would have been like. There were units of the Roman Army still stationed there into the 470's which gradually disbanded due to lack of pay, before Odoacer evacuated the population.
There is evidence that RB control/lifestyle continued along some parts of the Thames Valley almost to the end of the 5th century and a lot of this is put down to the presence of established Germanic communities of foederati who may have been second or third generation within the Roman Empire by then but were still able to negotiate with the new Germanic settlers coming in. There are also indications of Roman Cirencester being cleaned and repaired for several decades after the supposed withdrawal. Gildas is supposed to have been taught Latin there in the late 5th century.
I think urban life continued in Verulamium well past 410, as well as Wroxeter, Bath, Chester, and Exeter. But, I imagine there was increasing disorder as warlords, both RB and German, battled for supremacy.
It is rather embarrassing as Starmer is speaking live
I assume he does not know
The questions will be interesting
Or he simply doesn't trust the PM, I mean who would trust the word of Boris Johnson? The truly gullible.
I understand. You mean the Devil is always in the detail?
Does the letter make clear how the rule change, or is it a law change, is going to be policed? Will the MPs get locked up in the dungeon in the Palace of Westminster?
The Prime Minister has torpedoed Sir Keir's speech
I've missed what's going on - is this the lobbying thing?
I think it's this; Breaking News from the BBC Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
To be fair to Big G, SKS will have to rewrite some of his speech.
The problem was he was delivering it
You're overegging it a bit. What people will remember from today is the government U-turn, not some inconsequential speech from a no mark opposition leader. The first one damages the government far more than a bit of a wayward speech damages Labour.
Depends how many watch tonight's news
The BigG spin zone is in overdrive this evening.
BigG should have a spot on GB News where he regularly summarises the day’s news as a “terrible night for Keir/Labour/LD” etc.
I would suggest you listen to BBC or Sky for their reporting of this afternoon events and as far as GB news is concerned I never watch it
Crap reporting by them, then.
I don’t doubt that Keir’s speech is narcoleptic waffle, but what’s the big story here? Boris has been dragged kicking and screaming by an effective Opposition into an epic u-turn.
And the whole country knows that Boris is hardly genuine even in his new approach. He is simply running scared of public opinion.
Comments
Not sure if this is for everyone or because I should be on the higher risk list (heart murmur). They advise you to keep using it for 14 days, in case of relapse.
Boris Johnson has set out plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, in the wake of the row over former Conservative MP Owen Paterson.
In a letter to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the PM said MPs should adopt a ban "as a matter of urgency".
In the space of about a day he's managed to lose the North, the South and the long-standing Tory MP's.
Though that thought does prompt a vague memory of some manufactured outrage going over Johnson once for mentioning alcohol in a Sikh gurdwara, as if religious prohibition over it meant even mention of booze was a no no. He might even have apologised if memory serves. It just made me think why that would offend someone even if it was an odd location to mention it.
I seem to recall, too, that there was a volcanic eruption somewhere at about that time which severely disrupted the climate.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Rail_Class_37_D6943_(TOPS_37243,_37697)#/media/File:37243_Cardiff_Canton.jpg
Another lovely tractor. Though I'd love to get back to the 01 days ...
He's royally stuffed some of his key and veteran backbenchers. Done like kippers unless there is some weasel way out in the final draftings.
Funny that.
Starmer was in the process of a press conference about second jobs, while Boris had written to the Speaker proposing much the same and as the BBC have just said the release of the letter on twitter by Boris just at the time of the speech caught Starmer unawares and politics is a cruel game at times
Lack of infrastructure provides a lot of explanation for the below chart.
It is the Treasury which is stopping this spending, isn't it. That's down to Sunak, no. If so, torpedoing the Tories' chance of reinventing themselves as a more Northern party is not very sensible. The risk is that they lose those voters but don't get back any more voters in the South either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536
Something else he hasn't thought through no doubt.....
The right thing to do - but you're right it will p*ss off a lot of older Tory MPs....
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1460631938327355398?s=20
Lol. I’ve landed a light aircraft there myself several times.
Indeed it was flying back from there that i first spotted my current town as an interesting looking place to live.
I found myself watching the news from one of the main German channels yesterday and they used a graphic comparing their own data week on week.
How is it that the British media still haven't understood that day to day isn't comparable 20 months in?
... point to a potential slowdown coming.
And regardless of the recent surge, Delta is still exhausting the reservoir of uninfected kids, plus booster rollout increasing. I'm cautiously hopeful of a fresh downturn within the next week or so. And hospitalisations may not head upwards, anyway, as the older ages never had an upturn and the booster programme is belatedly accelerating.
Fingers crossed, anyway.
Boris was a journalist at one time, I believe.
Can't we just pay her the money on condition that she never opens her mouth ever again?
The fact you think that Boris’s attempt to “no, I dump YOU!” scores him any points is very touching.
They're either stupid, or mendacious. (Though I can't rule out the possibility that both are true.)
How are they never challenged on this?
If Sunday was going to be up as much as the rest of the week then we'd have expected England cases to come in at 3k higher, that it isn't is a good sign but it could also be reporting lag or just noise. The England hospitalisation numbers are probably the best we've seen for a while, down in the 600s and falling for admissions, in hospital numbers also falling which means the funnel is still negative despite rising cases last week.
If the PM wanted to do this he should have done it this morning or overnight at which point it'd have been leading the headlines as the PM's initiative rather than Starmer leading the headlines.
Seems like terrible, terrible media management. Have I missed anything there?
By this measure we're going up, but not by that much, and hardly at all in some regions. It's only really the southern half of the country where we are unambiguously seeing a rise.
My guess is less than a week until this mini-wave tops out.
"France clears Dunkirk migrant camp amid UK tensions"
I think we underestimate the salience of this whole story, and how damaging it is for HMG. We Brexited to Take Control of our Borders. What is the damn point if we then Lose Control of our Borders.
I am sure this is as much to blame for Boris' recent woes as all the sleaze. Meanwhile Poland looks firm and tough, refusing to let people cross the border illegally, even as we dutifully ferry people to Dover to have pizza on our sixpence
Not good optics. Not good at all
'If Sir Graham Brady doesn't have enough letter to trigger a VONC he certainly will now after this [the banning of lobbying].'
Obviously bad news for Sir Keir.
There is some karmic justice it seems that those who organised the pressure to save Paterson seem to be those who'll suffer now due to the lobbying ban. Karma's a bitch really.
1) Boris only does things when he has no choices left and what's left is unavoidable.
2) Boris and No 10 have been crap at media management for years and definitely since Dominic left.
@EricTopol
·
43m
How long will it last?
Nobody knows for sure yet.
But let's hope Israel is right again:
"By analyzing the antibody levels, researchers have concluded that the third shot could be effective for 9 – 10 months, or even longer."
===
Hope so. I don't want 24 hours of feeling shit again in the Spring for 4th booster.
Dinosaurs all around.
Mind you if they're backbenchers in safe seats they probably don't a flying f.
All through the vaccine bounce the media management was pretty good. In the last few weeks the wheels seem to have truly come off.
And if he flees, what will Carrie say? Or do?
Does the letter make clear how the rule change, or is it a law change, is going to be policed? Will the MPs get locked up in the dungeon in the Palace of Westminster?
I don’t doubt that Keir’s speech is narcoleptic waffle, but what’s the big story here? Boris has been dragged kicking and screaming by an effective Opposition into an epic u-turn.
And the whole country knows that Boris is hardly genuine even in his new approach. He is simply running scared of public opinion.
So roughly early January