Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A bit of a CON recovery in the first 2022 poll – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 3 in General
A bit of a CON recovery in the first 2022 poll – politicalbetting.com

Westminster Voting Intention (3 Jan):Labour 38% (-1)Conservative 35% (+4)Liberal Democrat 10% (-3)Green 5% (-1)Reform UK 4% (-1)Scottish National Party 5% (–)Other 2% (–)Changes +/- 20 Dechttps://t.co/fcAAHXQrBK pic.twitter.com/kRwCKdbGxq

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,801
    What's the overround in that market?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,646
    edited January 3
    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,084
    Dead cat.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    Its because of all the middle class are off skiing or in the Carribbean ;-)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408
    Expected really. I think this year will establish a neck and neck narrative.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,443
    edited January 3
    IanB2 said:

    Dead cat.

    FPT whilke on the subject of ex-vertebrates, did you see the IoW dinohunter piece in the website Graun today? Nice pic of Hanover Point and the chines to the south (I think).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,076
    It's all gone a bit January up here.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    Its because of all the middle class are off skiing or in the Carribbean ;-)

    Surely at their villas in Tuscany?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,801
    Apparently Smarkets will accept my money, but not my bets. What a shower.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562
    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,646
    pigeon said:

    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.

    The pandemic may never be over for the rest of your lifetime if you are well over 70. If you have been triple vaccinated why shouldn't you take the risk and enjoy a cruise in warmer climes? After all you are a pensioner so have no need to worry about returning to work
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    No Covid. No bets. No polls. No graphs. No numbers of any kind.

    But these two articles may be of interest to some on here -

    1. https://medium.com/@cyclefree2/perception-and-reality-7cbe78a2b679

    2. https://medium.com/@cyclefree2/the-price-of-indifference-c25d96c64e0b

    @Big_G_NorthWales may be interested in the second one as it discusses Aberfan and the recent excellent Radio Wales podcast about it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446
    edited January 3
    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.

    ETA and isn't there a privity of contract angle? Should A not have chipped in $1.00 to the settlement?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 11,274
    edited January 3
    OT it is all happening at 9 o'clock tonight. BBC1 on Stephen Port whose murders of gay men elicited a police investigation so inept that if anything @Cyclefree is underplaying her criticisms. BBC2 has a documentary on Rich people in Dubai so look out for @Sandpit's fleet of supercars.

    But we shall miss both as we'll be outside trying to spot a meteor shower through the clouds.
    The peak this year is estimated to be the night of January 3-4 and they are expected to be most visible around 9pm GMT.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/quadrantid-meteor-shower-london-2022-explained-b974714.html
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,735
    That's a good bet, @MikeSmithson

    I reckon the chances of a Tory lead in Jan are more like 50%.

    The Tory fall was over-done and over-egged. Starmer is still unimpressive, and Labour are devoid of policies. Boris is a mercurial character, who can still surprise

    He has fended off more restrictions and he could get a rally to the flag bounce: as we fight through winter

    @kinabulu may have no sense of humour whatsoever but he is often astute on the politics: neck-and-neck might the theme of the year
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,478
    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446

    OT it is all happening at 9 o'clock tonight. BBC1 on Stephen Port whose murders of gay men elicited a police investigation so inept that if anything @Cyclefree is underplaying her criticisms. BBC2 has a documentary on Rich people in Dubai so look out for @Sandpit's fleet of supercars.

    But we shall miss both as we'll be outside trying to spot a meteor shower through the clouds.
    The peak this year is estimated to be the night of January 3-4 and they are expected to be most visible around 9pm GMT.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/quadrantid-meteor-shower-london-2022-explained-b974714.html

    I dream of a world in which you could timeshift tv programmes to suit your meteor watching hobby. I mean, even in 1980 you could have VHSed one of the two.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446
    Leon said:

    That's a good bet, @MikeSmithson

    I reckon the chances of a Tory lead in Jan are more like 50%.

    The Tory fall was over-done and over-egged. Starmer is still unimpressive, and Labour are devoid of policies. Boris is a mercurial character, who can still surprise

    He has fended off more restrictions and he could get a rally to the flag bounce: as we fight through winter

    @kinabulu may have no sense of humour whatsoever but he is often astute on the politics: neck-and-neck might the theme of the year

    Riiiight, this is a clear blue water issue. I say humpty dumpty has had a great fall and is on an express elevator to hell, going down.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,084
    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dead cat.

    FPT whilke on the subject of ex-vertebrates, did you see the IoW dinohunter piece in the website Graun today? Nice pic of Hanover Point and the chines to the south (I think).
    I take the dog down to that beach - Compton Bay - now and again, and there are dinosaur toes (fossils of them) just lying about, if you know what to look for. Often there are fossil hunters down there with bags full of stuff they’ve hunted out. The cliffs are crumbling away and the tides are very strong, which presumably explains the continual supply.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 15,391

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    PB Virologists have correctly observed tis just a cold
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    The jury's still out on the Dutch lockdown experiment, but there's not much evidence at the moment to suggest that mild to moderate restrictions work against Omicron.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446
    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,478
    kinabalu said:

    Expected really. I think this year will establish a neck and neck narrative.

    Nip and tuck between blue and red.

    On the balance of probability the Conservatives under Johnson are more likely to hit troubled water more often than they are to find another magic vaccine. Although the latter is not beyond possiblity I would warrant.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,589
    edited January 3
    Omnium said:

    What's the overround in that market?

    106.04% book on the back side and 94.36% on the lay side.

    (I'm already on at longer odds - 4.8 (3.75 now))

    Not sure why you have an issue with Smarkets - I like it as much as BF.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,084
    edited January 3
    pigeon said:

    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.

    My mother went on one to the Canaries and back, just before Xmas, and had a great time - she even got £1000+ back as they were stranded in Southampton for a few days before it could set off. When you get to a certain age, it’s a uniquely convenient means of travel where the entire hotel, and all your stuff, follows you everywhere, and the entertainment offering on many cruise lines is the last remaining vestige of 1930s culture, that has entirely disappeared on land.

    An interesting - and already evident - tension for cruise lines is when the growing numbers who’d prefer 1970s-80s disco music starts to outnumber those who still hanker for Fred Astaire and pre-war dance hall.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    Vaccines world leading success cos BJ, hospitals declaring critical incidents cos ‘reasons’.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,478
    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    Because magic vaccines might save his bacon. Reminding us that the NHS is teetering on the brink brings not a single vote.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,762
    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    Does a hospital with a critical incident in progress really want a visit from a VIP, with a dozen hangers-on and media around him?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,646

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    Given the still low rate of hospitalisation for those who have had their booster it was the correct call from a government perspective and a Tory perspective in stopping leakage of anti restriction rightwingers from the Tories
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    On topic, I’d disagree with Mike’s assertion re the lack of political news. There has, in fact, been one very big one and it directly ties in with why BJ a may have recovered, namely the decision not to lock down further when Scotland and Wales did. It’s a reasonable assumption to think that has helped BJ.

    On a separate note, it will also be interesting to see Scottish / Welsh specific polling to see if Sturgeon / Drakeford have taken a hit from cancelling the New Year. The reported hordes flowing into England from both would suggest there might be some repercussions.

    Final point: interesting that Labour is down only 1 and the Lib Dems down 3. Wonder what the regional polling splits are because one read through might be the Tories doing better in the South.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,762
    edited January 3

    OT it is all happening at 9 o'clock tonight. BBC1 on Stephen Port whose murders of gay men elicited a police investigation so inept that if anything @Cyclefree is underplaying her criticisms. BBC2 has a documentary on Rich people in Dubai so look out for @Sandpit's fleet of supercars.

    But we shall miss both as we'll be outside trying to spot a meteor shower through the clouds.
    The peak this year is estimated to be the night of January 3-4 and they are expected to be most visible around 9pm GMT.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/quadrantid-meteor-shower-london-2022-explained-b974714.html

    Ooh, I think I’ll take the documentary about the serial killer. Too cloudy for meteor spotting out here sadly, we’ve had rain today! The less said about BBC2, the better.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,888
    On Topic peak SKS has been and gone

    SKS behind on best PM

    Oh well
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.

    The pandemic may never be over for the rest of your lifetime if you are well over 70. If you have been triple vaccinated why shouldn't you take the risk and enjoy a cruise in warmer climes? After all you are a pensioner so have no need to worry about returning to work
    At the rate we're going the pandemic may be effectively over by Easter. Firstly, because nearly everyone will have had Covid at least once, allowing us to move from the pandemic to the endemic condition. And secondly, because there's no point in maintaining an architecture of mass population testing, contact tracing, and restrictions (whether in the form of isolation, masks or various flavours of social distancing) if the restrictions are no longer effective in managing the disease.

    In the meantime, why would you go on one of these ships if you're exposing yourself to a high probability of incarceration? You'd be better off buying some DVDs of exotic locations to stick on the telly and cranking the central heating up.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    MrEd said:

    On topic, I’d disagree with Mike’s assertion re the lack of political news. There has, in fact, been one very big one and it directly ties in with why BJ a may have recovered, namely the decision not to lock down further when Scotland and Wales did. It’s a reasonable assumption to think that has helped BJ.

    On a separate note, it will also be interesting to see Scottish / Welsh specific polling to see if Sturgeon / Drakeford have taken a hit from cancelling the New Year. The reported hordes flowing into England from both would suggest there might be some repercussions.

    Final point: interesting that Labour is down only 1 and the Lib Dems down 3. Wonder what the regional polling splits are because one read through might be the Tories doing better in the South.

    First honeymoon over for SNP of 2022 observed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,024
    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    It's one of these things where he cannot do right. If he turns up, he'll get accused of 'bothering' a unit that is already stretched at a time they could really do with just concentrating on what they do best. If he doesn't turn up, he gets accused of ignoring the crisis.

    Although if I were him - and carefully choreographed with the hospital to avoid disruption - I'd do both. Go to a hospital and show how nasty dying from Covid is. Find an anti-vaxxer patient who regrets not being vaccinated and get them to send a message. Then go to a vax centre and say: "If you don't want to risk what that person is going through, get your backside down here."

    Of course, he may turn up at a hospital in the next few days.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,217
    edited January 3
    Johnson's team are said to like "dead cats".

    This is what we call a "dead cat bounce".

    Edit: I see IanB2 got ian B4 me.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446

    On Topic peak SKS has been and gone

    SKS behind on best PM

    Oh well

    Bojo = not waving but drowning.

    1 poll in 20 is an outlier.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    What? Has your hospital ever declared a critical incident? If so, do you remember thinking "The thing I'd give my right arm for just now, is a visit from Boris Johnson"?
    Yes, we have had several in the last year, and yes the SMT explains it to the PM or Health Sec would be fine. No Nedd to interfere with front line activities.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,762
    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    Or any activity related to Epstein’s sex parties, which includes trying to shake down the people who attended them, a couple of decades later.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,478
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    The jury's still out on the Dutch lockdown experiment, but there's not much evidence at the moment to suggest that mild to moderate restrictions work against Omicron.
    It may turn out that the CRG holding Johnson hostage over Christmas and the New Year was inspired, although the signs and the mood music from Johnson that the NHS could fail over the next three weeks does not inspire confidence.

    Justification of Johnson's inaction by suggesting, "well it was a waste of time in Holland" misses the point. I don't think a Holland style lockdown was ever on the cards in any of the home nations.

    Johnson hasn't justified one way or the other why he has chosen the course for England he has followed. He has shrugged his shoulders and hoped for the best. Let's hope it works out for him (and us).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,888
    pigeon said:

    On Topic peak SKS has been and gone

    SKS behind on best PM

    Oh well

    Is it possible that people are reading a little bit too much into the vagaries of opinion polling?

    That was a public information message from the Ministry for the Bleedin' Obvious
    Maybe but CHB had SKS home and hosed a fortnight ago.

    I still think Johnson will win in next GE unless deposed by the Tory Nutjob MPs
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,831
    edited January 3
    Cons have gone several days without an era definimg scandal so their supporters will be flocking back to them.

    It is the same pattern as before, it just looked different because they managed to chain multiple scandals into a short space of time.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,076
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    The jury's still out on the Dutch lockdown experiment, but there's not much evidence at the moment to suggest that mild to moderate restrictions work against Omicron.
    I notice the Dutch are opening schools as normal.
    Whereas Ontario keeping them shut till 19th at least.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    Meanwhile, off topic - I see Licorice Pizza is getting rave reviews from the critics.

    To be fair, I like the trailer (especially as it uses Life on Mars) but none of the critics have commented on the fact that this “delightful rom-com” revolves around a romance between a 15 year old boy and a 25 year old woman. The trailer also has the woman showing the boy her t1ts after saying “do you want to see my breasts” and also asking her friend “is it weird I hang out with (15 year old) Gary and his friends?”

    Now, let’s reverse the roles and say we have a “Rom-com” with a 25 year old guy and 15 year old girl, the guy saying “wanna see my d1ck?” and then exposing himself, and then asking his friend whether it’s weird he hangs around with a bunch of 15 year old girls…do we reckon the critics would be praising it to the skies…

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 15,391
    Its just possible that Tory rampers may be reading too much into a single poll.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    Or any activity related to Epstein’s sex parties, which includes trying to shake down the people who attended them, a couple of decades later.
    A lot of victim blaming going on there.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,831

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I’d disagree with Mike’s assertion re the lack of political news. There has, in fact, been one very big one and it directly ties in with why BJ a may have recovered, namely the decision not to lock down further when Scotland and Wales did. It’s a reasonable assumption to think that has helped BJ.

    On a separate note, it will also be interesting to see Scottish / Welsh specific polling to see if Sturgeon / Drakeford have taken a hit from cancelling the New Year. The reported hordes flowing into England from both would suggest there might be some repercussions.

    Final point: interesting that Labour is down only 1 and the Lib Dems down 3. Wonder what the regional polling splits are because one read through might be the Tories doing better in the South.

    First honeymoon over for SNP of 2022 observed.
    It gets earlier every year.

    Now, i didn't bet on the market this time out but I'm wondering how everyone's "Sturegon to be replaced as First Minister before end of 2021" bets did?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,387
    edited January 3
    MrEd said:

    Meanwhile, off topic - I see Licorice Pizza is getting rave reviews from the critics.

    To be fair, I like the trailer (especially as it uses Life on Mars) but none of the critics have commented on the fact that this “delightful rom-com” revolves around a romance between a 15 year old boy and a 25 year old woman. The trailer also has the woman showing the boy her t1ts after saying “do you want to see my breasts” and also asking her friend “is it weird I hang out with (15 year old) Gary and his friends?”

    Now, let’s reverse the roles and say we have a “Rom-com” with a 25 year old guy and 15 year old girl, the guy saying “wanna see my d1ck?” and then exposing himself, and then asking his friend whether it’s weird he hangs around with a bunch of 15 year old girls…do we reckon the critics would be praising it to the skies…

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012611-lolita

    or

    https://rottentomatoes.com/m/manhattan

    One might also include the entire works of Roman Polanski.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790
    edited January 3
    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    Why the hell is Johnson at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident and not at a vaccine centre.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,076
    IanB2 said:

    pigeon said:

    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.

    My mother went on one to the Canaries and back, just before Xmas, and had a great time - she even got £1000+ back as they were stranded in Southampton for a few days before it could set off. When you get to a certain age, it’s a uniquely convenient means of travel where the entire hotel, and all your stuff, follows you everywhere, and the entertainment offering on many cruise lines is the last remaining vestige of 1930s culture, that has entirely disappeared on land.

    An interesting - and already evident - tension for cruise lines is when the growing numbers who’d prefer 1970s-80s disco music starts to outnumber those who still hanker for Fred Astaire and pre-war dance hall.
    Hang on. A 70 year old was 20 in 1972. Not pre-war.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,646
    edited January 3
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.

    The pandemic may never be over for the rest of your lifetime if you are well over 70. If you have been triple vaccinated why shouldn't you take the risk and enjoy a cruise in warmer climes? After all you are a pensioner so have no need to worry about returning to work
    At the rate we're going the pandemic may be effectively over by Easter. Firstly, because nearly everyone will have had Covid at least once, allowing us to move from the pandemic to the endemic condition. And secondly, because there's no point in maintaining an architecture of mass population testing, contact tracing, and restrictions (whether in the form of isolation, masks or various flavours of social distancing) if the restrictions are no longer effective in managing the disease.

    In the meantime, why would you go on one of these ships if you're exposing yourself to a high probability of incarceration? You'd be better off buying some DVDs of exotic locations to stick on the telly and cranking the central heating up.
    Covid will likely be with us certainly every winter for years to come, with Covid boosters needed as we now have winter flu jabs as new variants emerge. If you are over 75, well off and are a pensioner with time on your hands who has had your booster why on Earth should you not spend part of the winter in warmer climes in Florida and the Caribbean or Mediterranean or Indian ocean?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,589
    1.7 on CP Most Seats with BF and Smarkets is available. Value I think.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446
    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    OK. Let's see.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,327
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.

    The pandemic may never be over for the rest of your lifetime if you are well over 70. If you have been triple vaccinated why shouldn't you take the risk and enjoy a cruise in warmer climes? After all you are a pensioner so have no need to worry about returning to work
    At the rate we're going the pandemic may be effectively over by Easter. Firstly, because nearly everyone will have had Covid at least once, allowing us to move from the pandemic to the endemic condition. And secondly, because there's no point in maintaining an architecture of mass population testing, contact tracing, and restrictions (whether in the form of isolation, masks or various flavours of social distancing) if the restrictions are no longer effective in managing the disease.

    In the meantime, why would you go on one of these ships if you're exposing yourself to a high probability of incarceration? You'd be better off buying some DVDs of exotic locations to stick on the telly and cranking the central heating up.
    My mother spent xmas on a cruise round the Caribbean. Partner tested positive (no symptoms) 2 days from the end, so they had a slightly dull 36 hours confined to cabin, but are now enjoying a free extra week's holiday in Florida at the cruise companies expense. Almost makes one bitter.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I’d disagree with Mike’s assertion re the lack of political news. There has, in fact, been one very big one and it directly ties in with why BJ a may have recovered, namely the decision not to lock down further when Scotland and Wales did. It’s a reasonable assumption to think that has helped BJ.

    On a separate note, it will also be interesting to see Scottish / Welsh specific polling to see if Sturgeon / Drakeford have taken a hit from cancelling the New Year. The reported hordes flowing into England from both would suggest there might be some repercussions.

    Final point: interesting that Labour is down only 1 and the Lib Dems down 3. Wonder what the regional polling splits are because one read through might be the Tories doing better in the South.

    First honeymoon over for SNP of 2022 observed.
    Nope. It may not. I said it is as a question. Good to see some 2022 overreaction already though.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,478
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    Given the still low rate of hospitalisation for those who have had their booster it was the correct call from a government perspective and a Tory perspective in stopping leakage of anti restriction rightwingers from the Tories
    Johnson has today suggested the hospitalisation numbers over the next three weeks could become a little lairy. Maybe he's bull******* us, I don't know?

    I am quite frankly disgusted that you have reached the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what this Government do for the common good, just so long as they do enough to retain a poll lead and win the next GE.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,024
    IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dead cat.

    FPT whilke on the subject of ex-vertebrates, did you see the IoW dinohunter piece in the website Graun today? Nice pic of Hanover Point and the chines to the south (I think).
    I take the dog down to that beach - Compton Bay - now and again, and there are dinosaur toes (fossils of them) just lying about, if you know what to look for. Often there are fossil hunters down there with bags full of stuff they’ve hunted out. The cliffs are crumbling away and the tides are very strong, which presumably explains the continual supply.
    One of the things the little 'un wants to do is go fossil hunting. There are not many places around here - a few Jurassic-era quarries near Peterborough and Grafham Water - but he really wants to hunt by the sea. I'm considering a trip to the IoW for that and other reasons.

    Coprolites don't hold any interest for him... http://www.cafg.net/docs/articles/Wimpole coprolites.pdf

    What I'd really like is an organised 'find a fossil' do for kids, where expert(s) are on hand to tell them what they've found in a 'good' area for fossils.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408
    edited January 3

    kinabalu said:

    Expected really. I think this year will establish a neck and neck narrative.

    Nip and tuck between blue and red.

    On the balance of probability the Conservatives under Johnson are more likely to hit troubled water more often than they are to find another magic vaccine. Although the latter is not beyond possiblity I would warrant.
    He's got his neatest ever haircut, I note.

    Can he reinvent as serious homme of political affairs without losing his USP of being just the most amusing thing ever?

    A fine line to tread.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    Given the still low rate of hospitalisation for those who have had their booster it was the correct call from a government perspective and a Tory perspective in stopping leakage of anti restriction rightwingers from the Tories
    Johnson has today suggested the hospitalisation numbers over the next three weeks could become a little lairy. Maybe he's bull******* us, I don't know?

    I am quite frankly disgusted that you have reached the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what this Government do for the common good, just so long as they do enough to retain a poll lead and win the next GE.
    Is that a conclusion or a starting point?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,076
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Expected really. I think this year will establish a neck and neck narrative.

    Nip and tuck between blue and red.

    On the balance of probability the Conservatives under Johnson are more likely to hit troubled water more often than they are to find another magic vaccine. Although the latter is not beyond possiblity I would warrant.
    He's got his neatest ever haircut, I note.

    Can he reinvent as serious homme of political affairs without losing his USP of being just the most amusing thing ever?

    A fine line to tread.
    That's Everton Player of the Season territory, mind.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,478

    pigeon said:

    On Topic peak SKS has been and gone

    SKS behind on best PM

    Oh well

    Is it possible that people are reading a little bit too much into the vagaries of opinion polling?

    That was a public information message from the Ministry for the Bleedin' Obvious
    Maybe but CHB had SKS home and hosed a fortnight ago.

    I still think Johnson will win in next GE unless deposed by the Tory Nutjob MPs
    Just keep an eye on the economy BJO. If it doesn't cause the Conservatives problems by May/June I will be surprised. Until then nip and tuck.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,646

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    Given the still low rate of hospitalisation for those who have had their booster it was the correct call from a government perspective and a Tory perspective in stopping leakage of anti restriction rightwingers from the Tories
    Johnson has today suggested the hospitalisation numbers over the next three weeks could become a little lairy. Maybe he's bull******* us, I don't know?

    I am quite frankly disgusted that you have reached the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what this Government do for the common good, just so long as they do enough to retain a poll lead and win the next GE.
    I could not care less. Post vaccination we are now in a clear ideological divide of statist leftwingers who want to impose Covid restrictions forever and rightwingers and libertarians who want us to largely live our lives freely again.

    Boris has correctly positioned himself on the right side of that divide to motivate his base
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,175
    Bring back OGS.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Meanwhile, off topic - I see Licorice Pizza is getting rave reviews from the critics.

    To be fair, I like the trailer (especially as it uses Life on Mars) but none of the critics have commented on the fact that this “delightful rom-com” revolves around a romance between a 15 year old boy and a 25 year old woman. The trailer also has the woman showing the boy her t1ts after saying “do you want to see my breasts” and also asking her friend “is it weird I hang out with (15 year old) Gary and his friends?”

    Now, let’s reverse the roles and say we have a “Rom-com” with a 25 year old guy and 15 year old girl, the guy saying “wanna see my d1ck?” and then exposing himself, and then asking his friend whether it’s weird he hangs around with a bunch of 15 year old girls…do we reckon the critics would be praising it to the skies…

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012611-lolita

    or

    https://rottentomatoes.com/m/manhattan

    One might also include the entire works of Roman Polanski.
    Both of which movies always feels slightly disturbing for the same reasons as Licorice Pizza.

    Maybe I should give up on the queasiness and just go with the general flow of the critics…
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    It's one of these things where he cannot do right. If he turns up, he'll get accused of 'bothering' a unit that is already stretched at a time they could really do with just concentrating on what they do best. If he doesn't turn up, he gets accused of ignoring the crisis.

    Although if I were him - and carefully choreographed with the hospital to avoid disruption - I'd do both. Go to a hospital and show how nasty dying from Covid is. Find an anti-vaxxer patient who regrets not being vaccinated and get them to send a message. Then go to a vax centre and say: "If you don't want to risk what that person is going through, get your backside down here."

    Of course, he may turn up at a hospital in the next few days.
    I don't think he's that ill.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I’d disagree with Mike’s assertion re the lack of political news. There has, in fact, been one very big one and it directly ties in with why BJ a may have recovered, namely the decision not to lock down further when Scotland and Wales did. It’s a reasonable assumption to think that has helped BJ.

    On a separate note, it will also be interesting to see Scottish / Welsh specific polling to see if Sturgeon / Drakeford have taken a hit from cancelling the New Year. The reported hordes flowing into England from both would suggest there might be some repercussions.

    Final point: interesting that Labour is down only 1 and the Lib Dems down 3. Wonder what the regional polling splits are because one read through might be the Tories doing better in the South.

    First honeymoon over for SNP of 2022 observed.
    It gets earlier every year.

    Now, i didn't bet on the market this time out but I'm wondering how everyone's "Sturegon to be replaced as First Minister before end of 2021" bets did?
    Her having to resign after the rapier-like questioning of Murdo & Jackie, Salmond’s shattering testimony and the courageous truth telling of The Spectator made it a forgone conclusion.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    The jury's still out on the Dutch lockdown experiment, but there's not much evidence at the moment to suggest that mild to moderate restrictions work against Omicron.
    It may turn out that the CRG holding Johnson hostage over Christmas and the New Year was inspired, although the signs and the mood music from Johnson that the NHS could fail over the next three weeks does not inspire confidence.

    Justification of Johnson's inaction by suggesting, "well it was a waste of time in Holland" misses the point. I don't think a Holland style lockdown was ever on the cards in any of the home nations.

    Johnson hasn't justified one way or the other why he has chosen the course for England he has followed. He has shrugged his shoulders and hoped for the best. Let's hope it works out for him (and us).
    I don't give a monkeys about Johnson, and the suggestion that he was too weak to get more restrictions past cabinet is probably correct.

    I only name-dropped the Netherlands because their Draconian approach - enforcing severe social distancing upon the whole population - is the only thing that might still do some good against Omicron, albeit with the caveat that it was done going into a holiday season, so there'll be a mass return to workplaces imminently, and they're going to relent and let the schools go back next week, so we may see cases start to properly take off shortly. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd just ended up delaying a very steep rise in cases, rather than flattening it out.

    Anyway, the point I was seeking to make is that we've seen a variety of approaches to restrictions, involving the use of vaccine passports, masks and social distancing to a greater or lesser extent across a whole variety of European jurisdictions, and no variation in approach short of hard lockdown appears to have made any difference at all once the Omicron variant has got its teeth stuck into a population. That's all.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,387
    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Meanwhile, off topic - I see Licorice Pizza is getting rave reviews from the critics.

    To be fair, I like the trailer (especially as it uses Life on Mars) but none of the critics have commented on the fact that this “delightful rom-com” revolves around a romance between a 15 year old boy and a 25 year old woman. The trailer also has the woman showing the boy her t1ts after saying “do you want to see my breasts” and also asking her friend “is it weird I hang out with (15 year old) Gary and his friends?”

    Now, let’s reverse the roles and say we have a “Rom-com” with a 25 year old guy and 15 year old girl, the guy saying “wanna see my d1ck?” and then exposing himself, and then asking his friend whether it’s weird he hangs around with a bunch of 15 year old girls…do we reckon the critics would be praising it to the skies…

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012611-lolita

    or

    https://rottentomatoes.com/m/manhattan

    One might also include the entire works of Roman Polanski.
    Both of which movies always feels slightly disturbing for the same reasons as Licorice Pizza.

    Maybe I should give up on the queasiness and just go with the general flow of the critics…
    I always find Manhattan particularly disturbing. Although I may be influenced by Allen's subsequent live events.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,024
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    It's one of these things where he cannot do right. If he turns up, he'll get accused of 'bothering' a unit that is already stretched at a time they could really do with just concentrating on what they do best. If he doesn't turn up, he gets accused of ignoring the crisis.

    Although if I were him - and carefully choreographed with the hospital to avoid disruption - I'd do both. Go to a hospital and show how nasty dying from Covid is. Find an anti-vaxxer patient who regrets not being vaccinated and get them to send a message. Then go to a vax centre and say: "If you don't want to risk what that person is going through, get your backside down here."

    Of course, he may turn up at a hospital in the next few days.
    I don't think he's that ill.
    Yes, I've just realised how that read. It was unintentional.

    Sadly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    OK. Let's see.
    My view is simply how a UK court would construe such an agreement. I have no knowledge or expertise as to how an American court will address it but surely even if they let this proceed there is a nailed on appeal point?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I’d disagree with Mike’s assertion re the lack of political news. There has, in fact, been one very big one and it directly ties in with why BJ a may have recovered, namely the decision not to lock down further when Scotland and Wales did. It’s a reasonable assumption to think that has helped BJ.

    On a separate note, it will also be interesting to see Scottish / Welsh specific polling to see if Sturgeon / Drakeford have taken a hit from cancelling the New Year. The reported hordes flowing into England from both would suggest there might be some repercussions.

    Final point: interesting that Labour is down only 1 and the Lib Dems down 3. Wonder what the regional polling splits are because one read through might be the Tories doing better in the South.

    First honeymoon over for SNP of 2022 observed.
    It gets earlier every year.

    Now, i didn't bet on the market this time out but I'm wondering how everyone's "Sturegon to be replaced as First Minister before end of 2021" bets did?
    Ah, and also getting earlier is the sensitivity of any suggestion that the Holy Cause led by Blessed St Nicola may see bumps in the road.

    I certainly wouldn’t bet against the SNP. The fact they are polling so well despite multiple fuck-ups suggesting there is a very good chunk of the electorate that will vote for them come Hell or high water. In that regards, the Scottish electorate seems to care less for incompetence than the English one does.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,491
    Cyclefree said:

    No Covid. No bets. No polls. No graphs. No numbers of any kind.

    But these two articles may be of interest to some on here -

    1. https://medium.com/@cyclefree2/perception-and-reality-7cbe78a2b679

    2. https://medium.com/@cyclefree2/the-price-of-indifference-c25d96c64e0b

    @Big_G_NorthWales may be interested in the second one as it discusses Aberfan and the recent excellent Radio Wales podcast about it.

    Thanks @Cyclefree and it is a tale of tragedy that haunts many of us
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,762
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    Or any activity related to Epstein’s sex parties, which includes trying to shake down the people who attended them, a couple of decades later.
    A lot of victim blaming going on there.
    Not blaming anyone, but she’s obviously spent the $500,000 Epstein gave her a few years ago, and needs to support herself somehow.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.

    The pandemic may never be over for the rest of your lifetime if you are well over 70. If you have been triple vaccinated why shouldn't you take the risk and enjoy a cruise in warmer climes? After all you are a pensioner so have no need to worry about returning to work
    At the rate we're going the pandemic may be effectively over by Easter. Firstly, because nearly everyone will have had Covid at least once, allowing us to move from the pandemic to the endemic condition. And secondly, because there's no point in maintaining an architecture of mass population testing, contact tracing, and restrictions (whether in the form of isolation, masks or various flavours of social distancing) if the restrictions are no longer effective in managing the disease.

    In the meantime, why would you go on one of these ships if you're exposing yourself to a high probability of incarceration? You'd be better off buying some DVDs of exotic locations to stick on the telly and cranking the central heating up.
    Covid will likely be with us certainly every winter for years to come, with Covid boosters needed as we now have winter flu jabs as new variants emerge. If you are over 75, well off and are a pensioner with time on your hands who has had your booster why on Earth should you not spend part of the winter in warmer climes in Florida and the Caribbean or Mediterranean or Indian ocean?
    Yes, *after* the Covid crap has gone away (i.e. it's just a matter of having a jab once or twice a year, rather than being imprisoned if someone who had it breathed on you three days ago,) not beforehand. Otherwise it's all something of a gamble, isn't it?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,084
    dixiedean said:

    IanB2 said:

    pigeon said:

    More than one tale today of twits going on cruise ships and having their holidays ruined - inevitably - by Covid. One voyage to Madeira that turned back halfway, if memory serves, and now a fiasco on the Italian Med.

    I mean, leaving aside one's views on the desirability or otherwise of cruise holidays as a concept, even if you love them why in the name of Christ would you actually risk going on one before the pandemic is over? So long as routine testing and mandatory quarantine for contacts are still in use, you are simply inviting disaster (and an extended term of detention in your poky little cabin.)

    They cost a bomb, too. Clearly a hobby beloved of pre-senile oldies with a great deal of money and no common sense.

    My mother went on one to the Canaries and back, just before Xmas, and had a great time - she even got £1000+ back as they were stranded in Southampton for a few days before it could set off. When you get to a certain age, it’s a uniquely convenient means of travel where the entire hotel, and all your stuff, follows you everywhere, and the entertainment offering on many cruise lines is the last remaining vestige of 1930s culture, that has entirely disappeared on land.

    An interesting - and already evident - tension for cruise lines is when the growing numbers who’d prefer 1970s-80s disco music starts to outnumber those who still hanker for Fred Astaire and pre-war dance hall.
    Hang on. A 70 year old was 20 in 1972. Not pre-war.
    True. Although my mother is 90.

    A dance hall-music hall-piano bar culture does survive on most cruise ships, despite most of the passengers who remember this from first time around having now embarked on one more journey than they’ve disembarked. Those growing up immediately post-war will be familiar with it. But how long the cruise lines will maintain this offering once those who came of age in the 60s (which as we know was mostly in the 70s) is the key question.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    dixiedean said:

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    The jury's still out on the Dutch lockdown experiment, but there's not much evidence at the moment to suggest that mild to moderate restrictions work against Omicron.
    I notice the Dutch are opening schools as normal.
    Whereas Ontario keeping them shut till 19th at least.
    I wish we were opening them as normal without these stupid mask requirements.

    I note the DfE say in their statement 'they are proven to reduce transmission' but fail to link to any study or provide any explanation of where they got that statement from. They wouldn't last five minutes on PB.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    kinabalu said:

    Expected really. I think this year will establish a neck and neck narrative.

    I’d go with that. If England continues to be looser than Scotland / Wales on COVID, I think that will help. The more worrying thing for Labour is the lack of enthusiasm for Starmer. I agree you get times when people want just plain (perceived) boring leadership but that doesn’t feel the mood of the nation now.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    tlg86 said:

    Bring back OGS.

    The 4-2-2-2 formation is a disaster. No width unless the full backs are way up the field, leaving the centre halves vulnerable. No link play worth a damn. Too easy to snuff out. Far too few crosses for the likes of Ronaldo, nothing for Fernandes to aim at, just a mess.

    We got everything we deserved from that game.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,578
    edited January 3
    Leon said:

    That's a good bet, @MikeSmithson

    I reckon the chances of a Tory lead in Jan are more like 50%.

    The Tory fall was over-done and over-egged. Starmer is still unimpressive, and Labour are devoid of policies. Boris is a mercurial character, who can still surprise

    He has fended off more restrictions and he could get a rally to the flag bounce: as we fight through winter

    @kinabulu may have no sense of humour whatsoever but he is often astute on the politics: neck-and-neck might the theme of the year

    Labour may be missing a significant chance. Every time one of their spokespeople pops up the formula is the same. The government should be doing a bit more of what they are doing; the government should spend more money it hasn't got; the government should have, months ago, spent money on an obscurity (school ventilation was it today?) that we have just heard about. No Labour ain't going to answer any questions about our policies. We haven't got any.

    In reality there is a huge gap in the market for a government in waiting (Lab the only option) to set out a distinctly different agenda on post-Brexit, big government, spending, how to approach pandemics, inflation, energy costs etc. Labour has decided for now to say nothing at all and avert all questions. Even BBC interviewers are beginning to notice.

    People who don't like this government, or ludicrous Tory MPs for decent reasons may be wondering about voting Labour. But they also wonder what they are for?

    By having no public policies of any interest Labour may still miss out.

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Meanwhile, off topic - I see Licorice Pizza is getting rave reviews from the critics.

    To be fair, I like the trailer (especially as it uses Life on Mars) but none of the critics have commented on the fact that this “delightful rom-com” revolves around a romance between a 15 year old boy and a 25 year old woman. The trailer also has the woman showing the boy her t1ts after saying “do you want to see my breasts” and also asking her friend “is it weird I hang out with (15 year old) Gary and his friends?”

    Now, let’s reverse the roles and say we have a “Rom-com” with a 25 year old guy and 15 year old girl, the guy saying “wanna see my d1ck?” and then exposing himself, and then asking his friend whether it’s weird he hangs around with a bunch of 15 year old girls…do we reckon the critics would be praising it to the skies…

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012611-lolita

    or

    https://rottentomatoes.com/m/manhattan

    One might also include the entire works of Roman Polanski.
    Both of which movies always feels slightly disturbing for the same reasons as Licorice Pizza.

    Maybe I should give up on the queasiness and just go with the general flow of the critics…
    I always find Manhattan particularly disturbing. Although I may be influenced by Allen's subsequent live events.
    Anything with Woody Allen has to be viewed in light of his later behaviour. Manhattan particularly feels like the old adage of hiding in plain sight.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,084

    IanB2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dead cat.

    FPT whilke on the subject of ex-vertebrates, did you see the IoW dinohunter piece in the website Graun today? Nice pic of Hanover Point and the chines to the south (I think).
    I take the dog down to that beach - Compton Bay - now and again, and there are dinosaur toes (fossils of them) just lying about, if you know what to look for. Often there are fossil hunters down there with bags full of stuff they’ve hunted out. The cliffs are crumbling away and the tides are very strong, which presumably explains the continual supply.
    One of the things the little 'un wants to do is go fossil hunting. There are not many places around here - a few Jurassic-era quarries near Peterborough and Grafham Water - but he really wants to hunt by the sea. I'm considering a trip to the IoW for that and other reasons.

    Coprolites don't hold any interest for him... http://www.cafg.net/docs/articles/Wimpole coprolites.pdf

    What I'd really like is an organised 'find a fossil' do for kids, where expert(s) are on hand to tell them what they've found in a 'good' area for fossils.
    If I see anything like that on offer around here, I’ll let you know.

    The dinosaur feet fossils are just lying on the beach, just east of the steps down from the car park to Compton Bay, because they’re too heavy for anyone to carry away. And the dinosaur museum at Sandown gets good reviews, although I haven’t been myself.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,491

    Foxy said:

    Why the hell is Johnson at a vaccine centre, and not at one of the six hospitals declaring a critical incident?

    To be fair, if a hospital is under severe stress do you want the PM, his whole entourage and the media turning up?
    I cannot even understand the logic of the question

    He would be a distraction and would be attacked for it
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,387
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    Or any activity related to Epstein’s sex parties, which includes trying to shake down the people who attended them, a couple of decades later.
    A lot of victim blaming going on there.
    Not blaming anyone, but she’s obviously spent the $500,000 Epstein gave her a few years ago, and needs to support herself somehow.
    Bravo is looking to do a A Real Sex Slaves of Jeffrey Epstein series apparently.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562
    edited January 3
    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I’d disagree with Mike’s assertion re the lack of political news. There has, in fact, been one very big one and it directly ties in with why BJ a may have recovered, namely the decision not to lock down further when Scotland and Wales did. It’s a reasonable assumption to think that has helped BJ.

    On a separate note, it will also be interesting to see Scottish / Welsh specific polling to see if Sturgeon / Drakeford have taken a hit from cancelling the New Year. The reported hordes flowing into England from both would suggest there might be some repercussions.

    Final point: interesting that Labour is down only 1 and the Lib Dems down 3. Wonder what the regional polling splits are because one read through might be the Tories doing better in the South.

    First honeymoon over for SNP of 2022 observed.
    It gets earlier every year.

    Now, i didn't bet on the market this time out but I'm wondering how everyone's "Sturegon to be replaced as First Minister before end of 2021" bets did?
    Ah, and also getting earlier is the sensitivity of any suggestion that the Holy Cause led by Blessed St Nicola may see bumps in the road.

    I certainly wouldn’t bet against the SNP. The fact they are polling so well despite multiple fuck-ups suggesting there is a very good chunk of the electorate that will vote for them come Hell or high water. In that regards, the Scottish electorate seems to care less for incompetence than the English one does.
    Either that, or a lot of them think that all of the alternatives are worse?

    Seriously, the SNP obviously has a large voter coalition, which will include those motivated by one or more of the following: people who back it because they are desperate for independence, and think voting SNP the best vehicle to get there; people who back it because they think it best represents what's good for Scotland; people who back it because they approve of Nicola Sturgeon; people who back it because they are anti-Tory; people who back it because it's rubbish but they think that Labour is even worse. I wouldn't like to venture a guess as to the proportions.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,606
    Just noting that in today's French Presidential polling, Macron leads Pecresse 54-46 in a hypothetical second round but his position against Le Pen has deteriorated suggesting the previous poll was an outlier. Macron still leads 58-42 in a hypothetical run off.

    Pecresse has a fight on her hands to make the final two it would seem.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,478
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Likely a result of Boris correctly refusing any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and New Year for England and just focusing on the boosters. Note the main movement is from LD and RefUK back to the Tories, not the more pro restriction Labour to the Tories.

    On the new Redfield poll the Tories would be back as largest party in a hung parliament after the boundary changes, though Starmer could still be PM with SNP confidence and supply

    He "correctly refused" any new Covid restrictions over Christmas and the New Year because he had nowhere else to go without a lynching from the CRG.

    The purpose of any new restrictions was solely to ease pressure on the health service. It remains to be seen whether they were "correctly refused" or otherwise.
    Given the still low rate of hospitalisation for those who have had their booster it was the correct call from a government perspective and a Tory perspective in stopping leakage of anti restriction rightwingers from the Tories
    Johnson has today suggested the hospitalisation numbers over the next three weeks could become a little lairy. Maybe he's bull******* us, I don't know?

    I am quite frankly disgusted that you have reached the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what this Government do for the common good, just so long as they do enough to retain a poll lead and win the next GE.
    I could not care less. Post vaccination we are now in a clear ideological divide of statist leftwingers who want to impose Covid restrictions forever and rightwingers and libertarians who want us to largely live our lives freely again.

    Boris has correctly positioned himself on the right side of that divide to motivate his base
    Don't be ridiculous. If Labour want to lock us down to exert state control over us I wouldn't vote for them, no one will! I would hope here in Wales Drakeford has put in place additional restrictions like table service at pubs and the closing of nightclubs in the vague, probably vain, hope that it might ease future pressure on the NHS and save lives be they Covid victims or non-Covid related patients.

    You are saying sod the hospitals, Steve Baker has spoken. The Conservative Party under a hands-tied Boris Johnson are ideologically opposed to Covid restrictions because that sustains Johnson as PM and could gain him some RedWall votes. If people can't access hospital services and die as a consequence, what the hell, who cares so long as Boris Johnson wins the next GE.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    Bring back OGS.

    The 4-2-2-2 formation is a disaster. No width unless the full backs are way up the field, leaving the centre halves vulnerable. No link play worth a damn. Too easy to snuff out. Far too few crosses for the likes of Ronaldo, nothing for Fernandes to aim at, just a mess.

    We got everything we deserved from that game.
    As a City fan, and considering all the abuse United fans gave us over the years when we were down in the (now! league 1 and so forth, I am loving this.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 15,391
    tlg86 said:

    Bring back OGS.

    Apparently he wasn't the problem...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    Or any activity related to Epstein’s sex parties, which includes trying to shake down the people who attended them, a couple of decades later.
    "Sex party" makes it sound like a sort of all adults together deal. And really, really cool.

    Which in reality, it probably wasn't.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I’d disagree with Mike’s assertion re the lack of political news. There has, in fact, been one very big one and it directly ties in with why BJ a may have recovered, namely the decision not to lock down further when Scotland and Wales did. It’s a reasonable assumption to think that has helped BJ.

    On a separate note, it will also be interesting to see Scottish / Welsh specific polling to see if Sturgeon / Drakeford have taken a hit from cancelling the New Year. The reported hordes flowing into England from both would suggest there might be some repercussions.

    Final point: interesting that Labour is down only 1 and the Lib Dems down 3. Wonder what the regional polling splits are because one read through might be the Tories doing better in the South.

    First honeymoon over for SNP of 2022 observed.
    It gets earlier every year.

    Now, i didn't bet on the market this time out but I'm wondering how everyone's "Sturegon to be replaced as First Minister before end of 2021" bets did?
    Ah, and also getting earlier is the sensitivity of any suggestion that the Holy Cause led by Blessed St Nicola may see bumps in the road.

    I certainly wouldn’t bet against the SNP. The fact they are polling so well despite multiple fuck-ups suggesting there is a very good chunk of the electorate that will vote for them come Hell or high water. In that regards, the Scottish electorate seems to care less for incompetence than the English one does.
    Sensitivity you say? You seem a tad thin skinned yersel.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    Or any activity related to Epstein’s sex parties, which includes trying to shake down the people who attended them, a couple of decades later.
    A lot of victim blaming going on there.
    Not blaming anyone, but she’s obviously spent the $500,000 Epstein gave her a few years ago, and needs to support herself somehow.
    Yep, I am not blaming anyone either, other than possibly her lawyers who saw a possible pay day and yet must have known that this document existed and its terms. No wonder they waited to the last moment to raise the claim.

    It really doesn't need to be said that none of this excuses Andrew's alleged behaviour or make it anything less than morally repulsive does it? Surely not.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

    epstein giuffre deal published

    "In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".

    The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world"."

    Whatever the merits of this particular case, I have a distinct dislike of the US system of both plea bargaining and of 'deals'. I don't know if it exists in British law but it just seems wrong to me.
    Remember that this is a civil action - in UK law the parties can always make a "deal" and agree to finish the case with an arrangement 'certified' (correct word?) by the Court.

    In her previous activities afaik Giuffre has always been after compensation not convictions.

    In UK Criminal Law the deals AIUI are normally a little subliminal and revolve around what you are charged with eg "plead guilty to a lesser offence", or the police offering a caution if they are not confident of a conviction.
    I have to say that if that agreement was before a Scottish or English court this case would be over. Indeed, it should never have started.
    Meaning, the court would chuck her out on the basis of the release? You are the successful practising lawyer, not me, but I hae me doots. You really, really can't tell what the scope of "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is without seeing the statement of claim, but if it says, say, people did stuff to me in Florida and the BVI, I don't see that it begins to cover stuff alleged to be done in NY or London.
    Yes, it would be chucked out. Her whole story is how Epstein trafficked her and set her up to be used by Andrew. How on earth could it not be connected? If it wasn't for Epstein what on earth was she doing there? If it was of her own volition with no trafficking why on earth would she have a claim?
    OK, but courts aren't going to be falling over themselves to interpret ambiguities in his favour. If the 2009 settled case says "stuff in florida" and the instant claim says "stuff in UK/NY" he has to say, in effect, yebbut actually I did stuff to her in Florida too. Attractive line of argument.,
    No he doesn't. He simply needs to argue that this settlement was intended to cover all potential defendants which included "Royalty", allegedly.
    Or any activity related to Epstein’s sex parties, which includes trying to shake down the people who attended them, a couple of decades later.
    A lot of victim blaming going on there.
    Not blaming anyone, but she’s obviously spent the $500,000 Epstein gave her a few years ago, and needs to support herself somehow.
    Bravo is looking to do a A Real Sex Slaves of Jeffrey Epstein series apparently.
    Showing how the little sluts were asking for it?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408

    OT it is all happening at 9 o'clock tonight. BBC1 on Stephen Port whose murders of gay men elicited a police investigation so inept that if anything @Cyclefree is underplaying her criticisms. BBC2 has a documentary on Rich people in Dubai so look out for @Sandpit's fleet of supercars.

    But we shall miss both as we'll be outside trying to spot a meteor shower through the clouds.
    The peak this year is estimated to be the night of January 3-4 and they are expected to be most visible around 9pm GMT.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/quadrantid-meteor-shower-london-2022-explained-b974714.html

    But it's the darts final! C'mon.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,801
    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Meanwhile, off topic - I see Licorice Pizza is getting rave reviews from the critics.

    To be fair, I like the trailer (especially as it uses Life on Mars) but none of the critics have commented on the fact that this “delightful rom-com” revolves around a romance between a 15 year old boy and a 25 year old woman. The trailer also has the woman showing the boy her t1ts after saying “do you want to see my breasts” and also asking her friend “is it weird I hang out with (15 year old) Gary and his friends?”

    Now, let’s reverse the roles and say we have a “Rom-com” with a 25 year old guy and 15 year old girl, the guy saying “wanna see my d1ck?” and then exposing himself, and then asking his friend whether it’s weird he hangs around with a bunch of 15 year old girls…do we reckon the critics would be praising it to the skies…

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012611-lolita

    or

    https://rottentomatoes.com/m/manhattan

    One might also include the entire works of Roman Polanski.
    Both of which movies always feels slightly disturbing for the same reasons as Licorice Pizza.

    Maybe I should give up on the queasiness and just go with the general flow of the critics…
    I always find Manhattan particularly disturbing. Although I may be influenced by Allen's subsequent live events.
    Anything with Woody Allen has to be viewed in light of his later behaviour. Manhattan particularly feels like the old adage of hiding in plain sight.
    We need to view your comments in that light too I guess. Are you likely to do anything odd in the future?

    His films are what they are, and they're great. Are there things that feel uncomfortable now - of course so.

    Who cares though... it's now all about the possibility of MrEd making an unwise comment.
Sign In or Register to comment.