You know what I'd really like to know about polls.... or rather people... is what happens in their heads.
I understand that you could be a Conservative voter, but then a serious of bad news comes out which the government of the day can be blamed, but I find it odd that the Conservative vote goes down and the Labour vote goes up.
The Conservative and Labour parties are at different ends of the spectrum. If you were disillusioned with the Conservatives, surely you'd either drift right (to Reform) or drift left (to the LD) or sit on your hands (so overall Con goes down, but everyone goes up).
But that rarely happens. Con goes down, Labour goes up; and vice versa.
I do wonder if a large part of the electorate are so disengaged with politics they think the only choices on offer are Labour or Conservative. I'm convinced the reason Clegg did so well in 2010 wasn't because of any debates, but because a huge amount of the electorate suddenly realised that there was actually three choices, and no, the ballot paper that lists the options isn't just Labour, Conservative, then the 10 joke candidates.
Am I right in thinking that. Most normal people (ie, no one on PB therefore) don't realise there are more than two choices?
I think a lot of that is differential turnout TBH which has caused a lot of the volatility between 2015, 2017 and 2019. The only constant since 2015 has been the Tory dominance with the over 65s.
I find it weirder how relatively stable Starmer's best PM ratings are, basically maxing out at 35% (apart from Ipsos Mori) given the recent volatility in party polling.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
Talking of conspiracy nutters....the #1 non-fiction book on Amazon.com, a dodgy hit piece on Dr Fauci written by an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist. God wept in the Land of the Free.
Is that the title - 'God wept in the Land of the Free' - or is that you?
No, the book is called "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health"
I think it gives a hint of what the narrative of the book might be.
There's a certain irony to Bill Gates being generally seen as a great guy while Microsoft was busy abusing its dominant position in the late 1990s/early 2000s and now hated, in some of the wackier quarters, as he uses his ill-gotten* gains to do genuine good in the world.
*not really ill-gotten, but would have been a wee bit dented with either fines or effective action to limit MS monopoly abuse
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
It was your previous incarnation I had in mind Phil in my post's characterisation.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
Are you thinking of running for office?
Doubt it very much, given his use of that particular name. Both on historical and political grounds. Unless BR does actuallky want to create a Pirate Party.
Re-create, surely. There a moderately successful Pirate Party in several European states.
Indeed. Why on earth is Holland in hard lockdown?!
The sensible Dutch
[snip]
For some reason which I can't fathom, the sensible Dutch haven't been sensible in this matter. Despite having a good medical system, excellent universities, and plenty of well-qualified experts, and despite their usual habit of being pragmatic and realistic, they for some reason decided that there was no urgency in getting boosters done. That was incomprehensible given the Israeli data on the waning of protection, which has been known for months, long before Omicron was a factor.
Now that it is a factor, they are sensibly and pragmatically panicking. So they should.
My Mother and Brother been reminding me all week, we are Damn lucky to have booster boosterism bojo.
I retort, he’s sure proving a lucky Godsend to us libdems right now 🤣
But seriously, UK government could have boosted booster programme a few weeks earlier? Or is that nit picking?
Without Omicron, the previous rate was probably acceptable. But having had Alpha and Delta, maybe we should have prepared for the next variant.
I think it’s nit picking John. I feel for the politicians because the scientists don’t carry the can the politicians do.
It will all come out in enquiry though the extent politicians were let down by science or not.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
It was your previous incarnation I had in mind Phil in my post's characterisation.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
Are you thinking of running for office?
Doubt it very much, given his use of that particular name. Both on historical and political grounds. Unless BR does actuallky want to create a Pirate Party.
Re-create, surely. There a moderately successful Pirate Party in several European states.
Quite right to pick me up on it; I should have said 'create a UK franchise of the PP'.
The comment about the name is meant constructively BTW; if I were setting up a new party or applying to be, say, SNP candidate for Broxtowe, I wouldn't call myself @HaroldShipman on a web discussion group.
Rather concerned that ramping up measures in Wales, and Scottish Parliament recall is indication that Devolved Govt’s have been tipped the wink that they will have the money to do so. Which can only surely be because England are going to spend it as well.
Isn't it just the policy of differentiation continued?
Can't differentiate till one knows what 'Boris' does, can one?
Weren't these announced after the status quo plan was announced?
My Mother and Brother been reminding me all week, we are Damn lucky to have booster boosterism bojo.
I retort, he’s sure proving a lucky Godsend to us libdems right now 🤣
But seriously, UK government could have boosted booster programme a few weeks earlier? Or is that nit picking?
Both things are true:
- We are doing very, very, well on boosters, compared with most comparable countries. We started large-scale boosters earlier than most, and we're now currently behind only Israel in boosters per 100K population. We're also continuing to roll them out fast, so we'll very soon overtake even Israel. So, good marks for that, and also for the initial prioritisation which means that we've got the vast majority of the most vulnerable protected.
- But it's equally true that we could easily have been in an even better position, at less effort, if only the JCVI hadn't stuck to the six-month gap for so long (as I and many others here, notably @MaxPB, have been arguing for a long time). For once, this wasn't the fault of the government, reports at the time said ministers were keen to get on with it, but the JCVI dragged their feet even though the data was already clear. Of course in theory the govt could have over-ruled them, but that's very hard politically and I'm not sure the precedent would be a good one, so I'm not surprised that they didn't.
I have given your post a like because I just posted the same thoughts before reading your post. 👍🏻
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
But to frame the other extreme in similar loaded language - you shouldn't need slam dunk proof of an incoming public health disaster before asking people to wear a mask in Tesco.
There's a balance to be struck based on upside downside risk analysis. As it happens, I think the government are playing this about right.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
Rather concerned that ramping up measures in Wales, and Scottish Parliament recall is indication that Devolved Govt’s have been tipped the wink that they will have the money to do so. Which can only surely be because England are going to spend it as well.
Isn't it just the policy of differentiation continued?
Can't differentiate till one knows what 'Boris' does, can one?
Weren't these announced after the status quo plan was announced?
The tightening of restrictions was adumbrated quite some time back IIRC, at a time when it was plain that HMG in London was being slow to decide because of internal party tensions.
Rather concerned that ramping up measures in Wales, and Scottish Parliament recall is indication that Devolved Govt’s have been tipped the wink that they will have the money to do so. Which can only surely be because England are going to spend it as well.
Isn't it just the policy of differentiation continued?
Scotland and Wales have generally differentiated about very low cost things or when it was for very defined short periods (eg. Wales circuit breakers last year). Committing to things with major costs with no obvious exit - I’m not so sure.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
It was your previous incarnation I had in mind Phil in my post's characterisation.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
Are you thinking of running for office?
Doubt it very much, given his use of that particular name. Both on historical and political grounds. Unless BR does actuallky want to create a Pirate Party.
Re-create, surely. There a moderately successful Pirate Party in several European states.
Quite right to pick me up on it; I should have said 'create a UK franchise of the PP'.
The comment about the name is meant constructively BTW; if I were setting up a new party or applying to be, say, SNP candidate for Broxtowe, I wouldn't call myself @HaroldShipman on a web discussion group.
There might well be someone with that name, of course. As there is probably more than one Fred West.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
It's worth saying the lockdown has probably cost the Glaswegian economy £1000 or so that we would be spending there next week.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
The left usually likes to be the ones saying poverty kills. This time however no amount of economic damage due to unecessary restrictions seems to count at all. Think how many future hospitals, sure start centres, etc etc are not getting built and run every time we casually spend another billion or 10, just in case.
I don't dispute any of that. I may be centrist scum, but the last thing I want to see, save for people dying unnecessarily are lockdowns. Sensible precautions however I am all for.
During the end of this year's earlier lockdowns I was accused of being a lazy-arsed pussy for my caution. Yet I was out and about working and mixing it with the hoi poloi whilst PB Steve Baker style keyboard warriors were banging away with their hard man rhetoric from the hermitically sealed safety of their Mum's basements.
There's a tendency of some in debate to equate support of lockdown with a liking for it and an indifference to its costs. There could well be people like that but not many. It certainly doesn't follow.
Or indeed that restrictions = lockdown. Some of the posting here is on the verge of seeing a Pekinese and going all screamy about Hounds of the Baskervilles.
Of course restrictions does not automatically mean lockdown. But cast you mind back exactly two years. Did you EVER imagine genuine told that you must wear a face mask in shops? Or have football played behind closed doors? Or limited to six people at a table? Or not legally allowed to have guests in your own home? You OWN home? So don’t fall for the mission creep of it’s just a few restrictions. It’s much more than that, and should only be used when absolutely needed. It must not become normal.
Rather concerned that ramping up measures in Wales, and Scottish Parliament recall is indication that Devolved Govt’s have been tipped the wink that they will have the money to do so. Which can only surely be because England are going to spend it as well.
Isn't it just the policy of differentiation continued?
Can't differentiate till one knows what 'Boris' does, can one?
Weren't these announced after the status quo plan was announced?
The tightening of restrictions was adumbrated quite some time back IIRC, at a time when it was plain that HMG in London was being slow to decide because of internal party tensions.
So when it was becoming clear that HMG wouldn't do anything, they did something? Interesting.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
It was your previous incarnation I had in mind Phil in my post's characterisation.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
Are you thinking of running for office?
Doubt it very much, given his use of that particular name. Both on historical and political grounds. Unless BR does actuallky want to create a Pirate Party.
Re-create, surely. There a moderately successful Pirate Party in several European states.
Quite right to pick me up on it; I should have said 'create a UK franchise of the PP'.
The comment about the name is meant constructively BTW; if I were setting up a new party or applying to be, say, SNP candidate for Broxtowe, I wouldn't call myself @HaroldShipman on a web discussion group.
There might well be someone with that name, of course. As there is probably more than one Fred West.
That's true, but those real life examples didn't get to pick their names. If one picks a name such as @JimmySavile on PB, however ...
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
Rather concerned that ramping up measures in Wales, and Scottish Parliament recall is indication that Devolved Govt’s have been tipped the wink that they will have the money to do so. Which can only surely be because England are going to spend it as well.
Isn't it just the policy of differentiation continued?
Can't differentiate till one knows what 'Boris' does, can one?
Weren't these announced after the status quo plan was announced?
The tightening of restrictions was adumbrated quite some time back IIRC, at a time when it was plain that HMG in London was being slow to decide because of internal party tensions.
So when it was becoming clear that HMG wouldn't do anything, they did something? Interesting.
I said, slow to decide - and I was surpised when HMG did nothing in the end given the other news.
Rather concerned that ramping up measures in Wales, and Scottish Parliament recall is indication that Devolved Govt’s have been tipped the wink that they will have the money to do so. Which can only surely be because England are going to spend it as well.
Isn't it just the policy of differentiation continued?
Can't differentiate till one knows what 'Boris' does, can one?
Weren't these announced after the status quo plan was announced?
The tightening of restrictions was adumbrated quite some time back IIRC, at a time when it was plain that HMG in London was being slow to decide because of internal party tensions.
So when it was becoming clear that HMG wouldn't do anything, they did something? Interesting.
I said, slow to decide - and I was surpised when HMG did nothing in the end given the other news.
The decision certainly was made after it was clear that HMG wasn't going to do anything. The policy of differentiation is really obvious sometimes, like the whole deal with the different number of levels of restrictions.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
The left usually likes to be the ones saying poverty kills. This time however no amount of economic damage due to unecessary restrictions seems to count at all. Think how many future hospitals, sure start centres, etc etc are not getting built and run every time we casually spend another billion or 10, just in case.
I don't dispute any of that. I may be centrist scum, but the last thing I want to see, save for people dying unnecessarily are lockdowns. Sensible precautions however I am all for.
During the end of this year's earlier lockdowns I was accused of being a lazy-arsed pussy for my caution. Yet I was out and about working and mixing it with the hoi poloi whilst PB Steve Baker style keyboard warriors were banging away with their hard man rhetoric from the hermitically sealed safety of their Mum's basements.
There's a tendency of some in debate to equate support of lockdown with a liking for it and an indifference to its costs. There could well be people like that but not many. It certainly doesn't follow.
Or indeed that restrictions = lockdown. Some of the posting here is on the verge of seeing a Pekinese and going all screamy about Hounds of the Baskervilles.
Of course restrictions does not automatically mean lockdown. But cast you mind back exactly two years. Did you EVER imagine genuine told that you must wear a face mask in shops? Or have football played behind closed doors? Or limited to six people at a table? Or not legally allowed to have guests in your own home? You OWN home? So don’t fall for the mission creep of it’s just a few restrictions. It’s much more than that, and should only be used when absolutely needed. It must not become normal.
Quite. But those are not normal times.
Actually, I did know it would come to this some day. I've read accounts of the flu disasters, and not recentloy either. [Edit] And enough books and papers about emerging diseases and variants.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
The left usually likes to be the ones saying poverty kills. This time however no amount of economic damage due to unecessary restrictions seems to count at all. Think how many future hospitals, sure start centres, etc etc are not getting built and run every time we casually spend another billion or 10, just in case.
I don't dispute any of that. I may be centrist scum, but the last thing I want to see, save for people dying unnecessarily are lockdowns. Sensible precautions however I am all for.
During the end of this year's earlier lockdowns I was accused of being a lazy-arsed pussy for my caution. Yet I was out and about working and mixing it with the hoi poloi whilst PB Steve Baker style keyboard warriors were banging away with their hard man rhetoric from the hermitically sealed safety of their Mum's basements.
There's a tendency of some in debate to equate support of lockdown with a liking for it and an indifference to its costs. There could well be people like that but not many. It certainly doesn't follow.
Or indeed that restrictions = lockdown. Some of the posting here is on the verge of seeing a Pekinese and going all screamy about Hounds of the Baskervilles.
Yes, that too. Lockdown gets used as shorthand for ANY measures, therefore loses its utility.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
Moderna-ed this morning. Very slightly sore arm but nothing really noticeable yet. The good burghers of our little town may yet get me playing the carols on Christmas Eve with both hands and pedals…
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
Yes, it's depressing how badly the narrative of lockdowns being a cautious measure has permeated western society. It's not caution, it's diving headlong into a known terrible idea. Lockdown's are a last resort measure, not a the easy way out to show caution. I'm truly grateful for the 100 Tory MPs and Cabinet wrestling the decision back and telling the scientists and "lockdown just in case" people in the public sector that it needs to pass a very high evidence bar, not modelled data.
Look at this specious, partisan, irresponsible drivel from Drakeford
“Drakeford contrasted the Welsh administration’s position with what he called the “state of paralysis” of Boris Johnson’s government over whether new restrictions were needed.
“They are paralysed by their internal divisions and are unable to act on it,” he said. “When we see the evidence, and we’re told about the actions we can take to protect people, we will take them. I think there’s a real contrast with the paralysis of a UK government simply unable to act.””
The UKG is not “paralysed”. It is deeply, rightly reluctant to take drastic, harmful action - destroying businesses and damaging lives - until it sees data to justify it. The data does not yet exist. Arguably with each hour that passes it points in the opposite direction. But we just don’t know yet
The worst behaviour of the Devolved governments during Covid has been as bad as any of the farcical wank at Westminster
Yes, the default position that lockdown is a good thing and positive decision is frankly appalling. The way the media, scientists and politicians have acted to normalise lockdown this past year that they can now demand it without having any evidence is a depressing thought. I hope the 100 Tory MPs hold out and force Boris into no lockdown next week. It's time to let the unvaccinated by choice die at home alone rather than let them collapse the NHS.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
Utterly dickless stirring, which is what US attorneys do. Who knows who their uncle in law knobbed 25 years ago? Truly pathetic stuff
There’s also no chance she would agree as it would be open season as any defense lawyer would destroy all her credibility as a witness by asking her about provable lies she’s told on tv etc and she would be under oath. So actually would be quite amusing……
London admissions 301, of which 74 are transfers who'd already been in for a week. 20 hour wait to find out how many of the rest were iffy too.
Total in hospital now just over 2k for London, just over 7k for England overall, but rose less today than yesterday, and agin those figures include every single transfer and incidental admission.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
Utterly dickless stirring, which is what US attorneys do. Who knows who their uncle in law knobbed 25 years ago? Truly pathetic stuff
There’s also no chance she would agree as it would be open season as any defense lawyer would destroy all her credibility as a witness by asking her about provable lies she’s told on tv etc and she would be under oath. So actually would be quite amusing……
She is a compellable witness, she doesn't have the choice of agreeing vs not. So, yes, all that would happen. This is designed to frighten HMQ/Chas into stumping up hush money.
London admissions 301, of which 74 are transfers who'd already been in for a week. 20 hour wait to find out how many of the rest were iffy too.
Total in hospital now just over 2k for London, just over 7k for England overall, but rose less today than yesterday, and agin those figures include every single transfer and incidental admission.
Mechanical ventilation fell nationally and in London where the number is now lower than it was on the 10th of December.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
Big fall in cases and deaths in Scotland today (halved) - data cock up?
* Public Health Scotland (PHS) are aware that today’s reported positive case numbers are lower than expected. PHS are investigating this, and will provide updates in future reports.
Keeping cases back so they can announce a really high number tomorrow, to frighten the stupid and journalists (ok, the same people) into accepting more severe lockdown measures?
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
But she didn't know him at the time of the allegations, did she?
But she knew him around the time of the disastrous Newsnight interview.
That's where he may have discussed stuff with her.
Incredibly unlikely that she has information about the case though, unless you think behind the scenes it's all he talks about to anyone and everyone.
Come on, don't deny me the deposition of the last of the 2,000 years.
Wouldn’t anything she’s heard (as she didn’t know him at the time) unless provable that it was directly from Andrew’s own mouth (sorry for the grim thought that conjure up) be hearsay and so inadmissible anyway?
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
It was your previous incarnation I had in mind Phil in my post's characterisation.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
Are you thinking of running for office?
Doubt it very much, given his use of that particular name. Both on historical and political grounds. Unless BR does actuallky want to create a Pirate Party.
Re-create, surely. There a moderately successful Pirate Party in several European states.
Quite right to pick me up on it; I should have said 'create a UK franchise of the PP'.
The comment about the name is meant constructively BTW; if I were setting up a new party or applying to be, say, SNP candidate for Broxtowe, I wouldn't call myself @HaroldShipman on a web discussion group.
There might well be someone with that name, of course. As there is probably more than one Fred West.
That's true, but those real life examples didn't get to pick their names. If one picks a name such as @JimmySavile on PB, however ...
Old King Cole was, of course, a merry old soul. Which was one of the reasons I picked it. That and because I'm in the vicinity of Colchester, the reputed site of King Coel's palace.
Moderna-ed this morning. Very slightly sore arm but nothing really noticeable yet. The good burghers of our little town may yet get me playing the carols on Christmas Eve with both hands and pedals…
Wait until the 22 hour mark. Don't have any plans to go partying tomorrow evening.
Moderna-ed this morning. Very slightly sore arm but nothing really noticeable yet. The good burghers of our little town may yet get me playing the carols on Christmas Eve with both hands and pedals…
Wait until the 22 hour mark. Don't have any plans to go partying tomorrow evening.
I thought it was significantly longer than that, at least 5 days to reach proper levels of protection?
Moderna-ed this morning. Very slightly sore arm but nothing really noticeable yet. The good burghers of our little town may yet get me playing the carols on Christmas Eve with both hands and pedals…
Wait until the 22 hour mark. Don't have any plans to go partying tomorrow evening.
I thought it was significantly longer than that, at least 5 days to reach proper levels of protection?
I think he is talking about side effects. I got Moderna on Monday morning and feeling pretty rough right now
Moderna-ed this morning. Very slightly sore arm but nothing really noticeable yet. The good burghers of our little town may yet get me playing the carols on Christmas Eve with both hands and pedals…
Wait until the 22 hour mark. Don't have any plans to go partying tomorrow evening.
I thought it was significantly longer than that, at least 5 days to reach proper levels of protection?
Robert means the worst side effects kick in at 22 hrs. True for me
Moderna-ed this morning. Very slightly sore arm but nothing really noticeable yet. The good burghers of our little town may yet get me playing the carols on Christmas Eve with both hands and pedals…
Wait until the 22 hour mark. Don't have any plans to go partying tomorrow evening.
I thought it was significantly longer than that, at least 5 days to reach proper levels of protection?
Robert means the worst side effects kick in at 22 hrs. True for me
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
But she didn't know him at the time of the allegations, did she?
But she knew him around the time of the disastrous Newsnight interview.
That's where he may have discussed stuff with her.
Incredibly unlikely that she has information about the case though, unless you think behind the scenes it's all he talks about to anyone and everyone.
Come on, don't deny me the deposition of the last of the 2,000 years.
Wouldn’t anything she’s heard (as she didn’t know him at the time) unless provable that it was directly from Andrew’s own mouth (sorry for the grim thought that conjure up) be hearsay and so inadmissible anyway?
X told me that A told him... would be first hand hearsay evidence of a confession statement so I think would be admissible in England
Moderna-ed this morning. Very slightly sore arm but nothing really noticeable yet. The good burghers of our little town may yet get me playing the carols on Christmas Eve with both hands and pedals…
Wait until the 22 hour mark. Don't have any plans to go partying tomorrow evening.
Good advice. That was my logic in travelling 40 miles for a jab today rather than 400 yards tomorrow - it should mean I’m more likely to be out the other side by Christmas Eve.
The jab centre was a pharmacy in Evesham’s Eastern European quarter, so I’m expecting the Windows 11 Polish Edition to kick in some time tomorrow.
Finland bans the sale of booze in bars and restaurants, after 5pm, for 3 weeks
I’ve experienced a Finnish winter. OMG the darkness. It makes London in late January look cheerful
And now no bars in which to morosely and silently gulp your vodka, deep into the frigid night…
brrr
Excess deaths will be down though.
Maybe
Finnish joke:
A Swede and a Finn get together for a drink. For three hours they sit across a bare table, silently necking vodka. Saying nothing. Finally the Swede gets bored and says “so, how are you?”
Despite the high national total, London cases reported no higher than peak at end of last week, so very much a story of spread across regions rather than reaching new highs in the capital.
Another drop in the number of people on mechanical ventilation in London, but rise in the number in hospital. This is unlike anything we've seen with the two previous waves. When the latter goes up, the former rises by a slightly lower rate.
Another drop in the number of people on mechanical ventilation in London, but rise in the number in hospital. This is unlike anything we've seen with the two previous waves. When the latter goes up, the former rises by a slightly lower rate.
2nd day in a row where c. 75 people who've been in hospital for over a week are being counted in the 'covid admissions' stats.
Seem to be back to wave 1 where hospitals are a breeding ground for covid - lucky this variant appears milder.
Indeed. Why on earth is Holland in hard lockdown?!
The sensible Dutch
[snip]
For some reason which I can't fathom, the sensible Dutch haven't been sensible in this matter. Despite having a good medical system, excellent universities, and plenty of well-qualified experts, and despite their usual habit of being pragmatic and realistic, they for some reason decided that there was no urgency in getting boosters done. That was incomprehensible given the Israeli data on the waning of protection, which has been known for months, long before Omicron was a factor.
Now that it is a factor, they are sensibly and pragmatically panicking. So they should.
This:
It is worth noting that the EU number is often revised upwards because some countries are slow to report. It is better to choose individual EU countries, and then it simply will only allow their data up until the last date recieved.
The EU average does give a good indication of where the centre of gravity in the EU-27 is.
It does not give a good measure of range though.
Which was why Comical Dave used it last Christmas to "prove" that the UK was the only one with a case-peak over Christmas 2020.
Just saw the JCVI news. FFS. Liberal handwriting and British exceptionalism at its worst. How long are our children going to have to endure disrupted education?
What's the JCVI news? Something on vaccinating younger children?
They’ve said most under 12s are not getting jabbed
How many of them have had the lurgy already? Must be 80%+
Mind you, how sure are they that variant Pi / Omega / Orion won't affect children badly?
It is odd, SAGE seem to come up with every possible scenario of doom, whereas JCVI seem to plan for everything staying as it is at this instant.
No, it's the Andromeda strain that will get the children
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
But she didn't know him at the time of the allegations, did she?
Surely hearsay is inadmissible, so unless she witnessed it herself (unlikely given timeframes and, well, everything),on what basis could she be called?
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
The left usually likes to be the ones saying poverty kills. This time however no amount of economic damage due to unecessary restrictions seems to count at all. Think how many future hospitals, sure start centres, etc etc are not getting built and run every time we casually spend another billion or 10, just in case.
I don't dispute any of that. I may be centrist scum, but the last thing I want to see, save for people dying unnecessarily are lockdowns. Sensible precautions however I am all for.
During the end of this year's earlier lockdowns I was accused of being a lazy-arsed pussy for my caution. Yet I was out and about working and mixing it with the hoi poloi whilst PB Steve Baker style keyboard warriors were banging away with their hard man rhetoric from the hermitically sealed safety of their Mum's basements.
There's a tendency of some in debate to equate support of lockdown with a liking for it and an indifference to its costs. There could well be people like that but not many. It certainly doesn't follow.
Or indeed that restrictions = lockdown. Some of the posting here is on the verge of seeing a Pekinese and going all screamy about Hounds of the Baskervilles.
Yes, that too. Lockdown gets used as shorthand for ANY measures, therefore loses its utility.
My rule of thumb is that a bar on indoor mixing = lockdown. If you are getting told your friends and family are not allowed to be in your house, that's lockdown. If pubs are being shut, that's lockdown. Rule of 6 (of how I hate that phrase!) in a pub is borderline. If you're being told to wear a mask to go to a shop, that's not lockdown, or stand 2m apart, or do the mask dance to go to the toilet, or use a one way system in a shopping centre - well there's a word for all that but it isn't lockdown.
You know what I'd really like to know about polls.... or rather people... is what happens in their heads.
I understand that you could be a Conservative voter, but then a serious of bad news comes out which the government of the day can be blamed, but I find it odd that the Conservative vote goes down and the Labour vote goes up.
The Conservative and Labour parties are at different ends of the spectrum. If you were disillusioned with the Conservatives, surely you'd either drift right (to Reform) or drift left (to the LD) or sit on your hands (so overall Con goes down, but everyone goes up).
But that rarely happens. Con goes down, Labour goes up; and vice versa.
I do wonder if a large part of the electorate are so disengaged with politics they think the only choices on offer are Labour or Conservative. I'm convinced the reason Clegg did so well in 2010 wasn't because of any debates, but because a huge amount of the electorate suddenly realised that there was actually three choices, and no, the ballot paper that lists the options isn't just Labour, Conservative, then the 10 joke candidates.
Am I right in thinking that. Most normal people (ie, no one on PB therefore) don't realise there are more than two choices?
I think a lot of that is differential turnout TBH which has caused a lot of the volatility between 2015, 2017 and 2019. The only constant since 2015 has been the Tory dominance with the over 65s.
I find it weirder how relatively stable Starmer's best PM ratings are, basically maxing out at 35% (apart from Ipsos Mori) given the recent volatility in party polling.
If we look at the detailed polling, e.g. the latest YouGov, there's a good deal of churn behind the figures. Only 7% of the 2019 Tories (i.e. 1 in 14 of them) switch directly to Labour, 8% to RefUk and 7% to LD and Green. But 29% of LibDems switch to Labour (and 2% to the Tories).
Those who do switch directly are perhaps influenced by the fact that really only Starmer is visible on TV of the opposition leader - apart from after the by-election, when did we last see Davey on the 10 o'clock news? Or whoever the Green leaders are (I've forgotten)? Also, lots of people don't think of politics as a spectrum, but rather as a not vety appetising menu, with some options in larger print. So people go "I didn't think much of the fish yesterday, maybe I'll try the lasagna", rather than "I think I'll move a bit along the spectrum and have the dish on the next line".
Turnout intention looks fairly similar for all 3 parties at the moment.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
Caution is waiting for the evidence to make a decision, which is what Johnson has done.
Scotland, Wales and NI have thrown all caution to the wind and jumped headfirst into restrictions without any proof that they're required.
If you are thinking of removing someone's civil liberties then the only acceptable grounds to do so is it has been proven to be necessary beyond all reasonable doubt. "The precautionary principle" is just complete bollocks, would you kill or incarcerate a suspected serial killer whom you've got no evidence is actually the killer on "the precautionary principle" or would you gather the evidence first?
Destroying lives and livelihoods by stripping away liberties, on a hunch that it might be necessary, is the real gamble. Waiting until you know it is necessary is doing only what is necessary, when it is necessary.
Yes, it's depressing how badly the narrative of lockdowns being a cautious measure has permeated western society. It's not caution, it's diving headlong into a known terrible idea. Lockdown's are a last resort measure, not a the easy way out to show caution. I'm truly grateful for the 100 Tory MPs and Cabinet wrestling the decision back and telling the scientists and "lockdown just in case" people in the public sector that it needs to pass a very high evidence bar, not modelled data.
Caution is also taking precautions, if the impact when firm evidence arrives is that the impact would have been far worse.
Talking of HMQ, London Bridge has a lorra bearing on Johnson's future.
The prospect of him clowning around at HM'S funeral...😱
He could do serious, once. His press conference at the start of the pandemic was pretty good, and better than most of his immediate predecessors would have done. Maybe those days are past now. Hopefully it's something we won't have to find out - though presumably someone currently in the HoC will have to do the speech at HMQ's funeral. Which is a slightly dispiriting thought.
Just saw the JCVI news. FFS. Liberal handwriting and British exceptionalism at its worst. How long are our children going to have to endure disrupted education?
What's the JCVI news? Something on vaccinating younger children?
They’ve said most under 12s are not getting jabbed
How many of them have had the lurgy already? Must be 80%+
Mind you, how sure are they that variant Pi / Omega / Orion won't affect children badly?
It is odd, SAGE seem to come up with every possible scenario of doom, whereas JCVI seem to plan for everything staying as it is at this instant.
No, it's the Andromeda strain that will get the children
Lol. If we do get constellations I have a feeling they might skip that one!
20th Dec (latest): 301 19th Dec: 245 18th Dec: 210
Yes, we need to see how many of those are incidental, the lack of any rise in mechanical ventilation is actually pretty hopeful. Tomorrow we'll get the incidental/non-incidental COVID admissions breakdown. Total bed occupancy will also be a really key statistic, if that is only going up by a few points it is a sign that we've got a big rise in people with COVID (we know that already), but not a sign that people are getting severely ill from having it.
The narrative has been that England is the gambler and the Scots and Welsh playing safe.
As the hard data starts to come in, is this narrative about to be turned on its head?
I think your narrative is faulty.
Scotland, Wales and NI may well be over- cautious. Johnson has still thrown the dice and hoped for the best. If he wins it is down to lady luck. It he doesn't win people might die who otherwise wouldn't have died.
(I hope he wins, I am just saying the mechanics behind the win are very dodgy.)
The left usually likes to be the ones saying poverty kills. This time however no amount of economic damage due to unecessary restrictions seems to count at all. Think how many future hospitals, sure start centres, etc etc are not getting built and run every time we casually spend another billion or 10, just in case.
I don't dispute any of that. I may be centrist scum, but the last thing I want to see, save for people dying unnecessarily are lockdowns. Sensible precautions however I am all for.
During the end of this year's earlier lockdowns I was accused of being a lazy-arsed pussy for my caution. Yet I was out and about working and mixing it with the hoi poloi whilst PB Steve Baker style keyboard warriors were banging away with their hard man rhetoric from the hermitically sealed safety of their Mum's basements.
There's a tendency of some in debate to equate support of lockdown with a liking for it and an indifference to its costs. There could well be people like that but not many. It certainly doesn't follow.
Or indeed that restrictions = lockdown. Some of the posting here is on the verge of seeing a Pekinese and going all screamy about Hounds of the Baskervilles.
Yes, that too. Lockdown gets used as shorthand for ANY measures, therefore loses its utility.
My rule of thumb is that a bar on indoor mixing = lockdown. If you are getting told your friends and family are not allowed to be in your house, that's lockdown. If pubs are being shut, that's lockdown. Rule of 6 (of how I hate that phrase!) in a pub is borderline. If you're being told to wear a mask to go to a shop, that's not lockdown, or stand 2m apart, or do the mask dance to go to the toilet, or use a one way system in a shopping centre - well there's a word for all that but it isn't lockdown.
Talking of HMQ, London Bridge has a lorra bearing on Johnson's future.
The prospect of him clowning around at HM'S funeral...😱
He could do serious, once. His press conference at the start of the pandemic was pretty good, and better than most of his immediate predecessors would have done. Maybe those days are past now. Hopefully it's something we won't have to find out - though presumably someone currently in the HoC will have to do the speech at HMQ's funeral. Which is a slightly dispiriting thought.
I agree. I commented on here at the time that Boris was ideal at fronting the press conferences and then handing over to the experts. And to start with he seemed to do a good job, but then...
Looking very much like peak of infections in London was the 15th. Hospitalisations rising strongly in London, as you would expect: you'd expect the peak in hospitalisations to be, what, a week after peak for infections - which is today. Hospitalisations in the UK in general flat.
Moderna-ed this morning. Very slightly sore arm but nothing really noticeable yet. The good burghers of our little town may yet get me playing the carols on Christmas Eve with both hands and pedals…
Lucky you. Have slept a chunk of this afternoon, arm feels like its been punched, head feels like its data bus has been disconnected from my body.
As an avid Johnson loather my hope is that there is a vote of no confidence that he wins. That will pretty well guarantee he's there at the next election which he'll almost certainly lose. The whole country now knows him to be a liar and laughing stock. The infamous Ratner gaffe showed the impossibility of rescuing a brand that's gone over the edge. The only real question is whether 'the brand' is just 'Johnson' or his party as well.
He could win a vote of confidence but choose to resign so time afterwards, especially if he was made an offer by Tory donors that he couldn’t refuse.
Big fall in cases and deaths in Scotland today (halved) - data cock up?
Under the recently introduced “Hate Everyone Who Disagrees With Nicola Act” from now on, only people self identifying as Trans will be included in the figures.
Comments
I find it weirder how relatively stable Starmer's best PM ratings are, basically maxing out at 35% (apart from Ipsos Mori) given the recent volatility in party polling.
I predict a popcorn shortage.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex could be called as witness in Prince Andrew's sex case.
Virginia Giuffre's lawyer says Duchess can be 'counted on to tell the truth' but said he is unlikely to depose the Queen 'out of respect'
The Duchess of Sussex could be called as a witness in the civil suit against Prince Andrew brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
David Boies, the lawyer representing Ms Giuffre, told the Daily Beast that the Duchess of Sussex “is somebody we can count on to tell the truth”.
Mr Boies said there are three reasons she may be deposed: “One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
Mr Boies stressed that no final decision had been made on who he would depose, stating that the Duchess is just “one of the people we are considering”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/12/22/meghan-markle-could-called-witness-prince-andrews-sex-case-brought/
*not really ill-gotten, but would have been a wee bit dented with either fines or effective action to limit MS monopoly abuse
It will all come out in enquiry though the extent politicians were let down by science or not.
The comment about the name is meant constructively BTW; if I were setting up a new party or applying to be, say, SNP candidate for Broxtowe, I wouldn't call myself @HaroldShipman on a web discussion group.
There's a balance to be struck based on upside downside risk analysis. As it happens, I think the government are playing this about right.
So don’t fall for the mission creep of it’s just a few restrictions. It’s much more than that, and should only be used when absolutely needed.
It must not become normal.
Has M been a close associate of Prince Andrew?
That's where he may have discussed stuff with her.
I’ve experienced a Finnish winter. OMG the darkness. It makes London in late January look cheerful
And now no bars in which to morosely and silently gulp your vodka, deep into the frigid night…
brrr
Actually, I did know it would come to this some day. I've read accounts of the flu disasters, and not recentloy either. [Edit] And enough books and papers about emerging diseases and variants.
London admissions 301, of which 74 are transfers who'd already been in for a week. 20 hour wait to find out how many of the rest were iffy too.
Total in hospital now just over 2k for London, just over 7k for England overall, but rose less today than yesterday, and agin those figures include every single transfer and incidental admission.
He also nearly won the Presidency for Albert Gore Jr.
The jab centre was a pharmacy in Evesham’s Eastern European quarter, so I’m expecting the Windows 11 Polish Edition to kick in some time tomorrow.
Finnish joke:
A Swede and a Finn get together for a drink. For three hours they sit across a bare table, silently necking vodka. Saying nothing. Finally the Swede gets bored and says “so, how are you?”
The Finn glares back, and says
“For fuck sake, are we here to drink or to talk?”
20th Dec (latest): 301
19th Dec: 245
18th Dec: 210
Seem to be back to wave 1 where hospitals are a breeding ground for covid - lucky this variant appears milder.
It does not give a good measure of range though.
Which was why Comical Dave used it last Christmas to "prove" that the UK was the only one with a case-peak over Christmas 2020.
157, 186, 227
So a bit of a jump today, but that was guaranteed by incidentals. we'll see tomorrow lunchtime how many of the rest are really covid patients.
Those who do switch directly are perhaps influenced by the fact that really only Starmer is visible on TV of the opposition leader - apart from after the by-election, when did we last see Davey on the 10 o'clock news? Or whoever the Green leaders are (I've forgotten)? Also, lots of people don't think of politics as a spectrum, but rather as a not vety appetising menu, with some options in larger print. So people go "I didn't think much of the fish yesterday, maybe I'll try the lasagna", rather than "I think I'll move a bit along the spectrum and have the dish on the next line".
Turnout intention looks fairly similar for all 3 parties at the moment.
Always a judgement call.
Though BJ heavily overuses lurid language.
Someone in hospital for over a week who then tests positive for covid is not an 'admission' in any meaningful sense.
Chance of dieing in next year
95 23.37%
96 25.31%
97 26.82%
98 28.40%
99 31.48%
100 34.09%
Source: https://www.finder.com/uk/find-out-your-odds-of-dying
Analysis conducted by finder.com
Tony Blair: If you’re eligible and refuse the Covid vaccine, you’re an idiot
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tony-blair-if-youre-eligible-and-refuse-the-covid-vaccine-youre-an-idiot-sz97xhkdq
Not people locked down.
Can't leave home = lockdown
Hospitalisations in the UK in general flat.
Boosters reported today: 968,665
Highest Boosters to date: 968,665 (today)
Nearest estimate: @Northern_Al 963,451
Next nearest: @MattW (986,000)
Newly eliminated entries:
@Andy_JS 930,000
As we await the daily Malmesbury Monoliths - cocktails mixed already today. All toasty and loungewear in the barn! 🤗
Is this the appropriate moment to post Finlandia? For you Leon 🙂
https://youtu.be/F5zg_af9b8c
Also, hey, it finally happened.