Howdy, Stranger!

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

Johnson needs another string to his bow than vaccines – politicalbetting.com

1246789

Comments

  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737
    edited January 5
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Ruth Davidson has suggested Boris Johnson should quit as prime minister to restore “moral authority” to Downing Street.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ruth-davidson-boris-johnson-should-quit-to-restore-tories-reputation-mfg7ctvr7

    Davidson has been a Cameron tool from day one.

    Dave is clearly going to tremendously enjoy the denouement.
    Yet Boris won more Scottish MPs than Cameron ever did and on the latest Scottish subsample of the latest poll the Scottish Conservatives are even back up to 28%
    Nonsense. That was all down to May in 2017 (13 seats) - Johnson lost 7 seats in 2019.
    The latest Scottish subsample from Redfield has the SCons back up to 28%, just 1% below what May got in 2017 and miles ahead of the just 15% they got under Cameron in 2015
    I think the Tories post 2016 performance in Scotland is more directly down to Brexit TBH although May probably receives a bit more credit alongside Davidson for the 2017 result as well.

    Douglas Ross probably also deserves a bit more credit for the Tories 2021 Holyrood result as well as he did so with limited media support.

    I don't see what Johnson has to do with positively impacting tory support in Scotland (even if there's limited evidence he's much more unpopular than Cameron) although I'm surprised the Tories have only dropped below 20% in Scotland now with Johnson as PM.

    Will also be interesting to see if a potential Tory downtown saves Labour's bacon in the central belt in May.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,550
    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,146
    edited January 5
    I've been backing CP to get a poll lead before 1 Feb (Smarkets). I see the odds have been coming down gradually and are now at 3.15, which represents just over 30% chance.

    Do you guys think this is about right?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,310

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    It seems as though being run by a 19 year-old is being used as some form of defence for their shady practices. Not sure why that is at all relevant.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,005
    Pretty lively contest in Jo'burg between Jansen and Bumrah.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,923
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If 10 - 15% of Covid infections are reinfections, that looks to me more or less that simple infection with a previous variant of either delta, wuhan or alpha provides ~ zero defense against simple reinfection with Omicron.

    i don;t think you can say that it is zero, just because some are getting reinfected.
    Plus we also don't have data on which original infection the person has had. There may be differences between original, alpha and delta.
    According to my workings, ~ 17% of England has had a known non Omicron infection. So 10-15% certainly hints at lowish efficacy of prevention of infection by previous variants.
    Many I expect will be broadly asymptomatic infections that may clear quickly, but they are still infections.
    Not sure about this - isn't it thought that 2/3 of the country has had covid? Does the reinfection rate only reflect those who have logged on the system?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,245
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222
    Betting post on SNP constituencies

    There seem to be 20 or so where a bit of careful planning locally could result in a none SNP winner


    Patrick English
    @PME_Politics
    We've had Walls, Halos, and Heartlands. Now how about we get our very own Belt?

    Everyone, meet the "Yellow Belt".

    20 SNP seats where:
    Yellow circle Majority is under 10%, OR
    Flag of United Kingdom The 'Pro-Union' vote is underperforming based on demographics


    https://patrickenglish.substack.com/p/an-absolute-yellow-belter
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,146
    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 5,984
    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    SKS tests positive - Rayner doing PMQs.

    Nobody has him in the Dead Pool before anyone asks.

    I reckon Johnson is such a slack twat he's bound to get it again.
    Likely now that nobody wins the DP. My hunch without doing the necessary maths - ho ho as if that's a piece of cake - is that you'd expect somebody would have done. There were some frivolous selections (eg Owen Jones) but most of us approached it with the care and deadly seriousness that such a comp clearly merited.
    There is still a couple of good shouts on there:

    @ukpaul Alex Jones - AJ claims to be not vaxxed and is a fat fuck
    @kinabula The Queen - 95 has to be a toss up if she gets it, vaxxed or not
    @paulyork64 Paul Gascoigne - dying of covid would be #classicgazza
    Back of an envelope:
    150k deaths out of 70 million in the UK is about 0.2% of the population. The odds improve by going for someone from more vulnerable demographics, but it's still a tough one to win.

    Put it another way- who is the most famous person to have died from Covid in the UK?
    Off the top of my head, Tim Brooke-Taylor. Partly that says a lot about me, I'm sure there are bigger names I've ignored.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,874
    The Taiwan Mandarin for creme brulee is pu ding. From US troops on R and R from Vietnam.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,350

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    The discussion on PB also assumes that not one of the teams will have problems with covid forcing them to pull out anyway.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,896
    On Djokovic, just imagine what sort of player he’d have been, were it not for this unfortunate medical condition which prevents him from being vaccinated?
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222
    edited January 5

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    I guess the logic goes

    Home Support > closed doors > away

    but the reality is a question of money and the Welsh / Scottish Rugby Unions would probably accept a "home" game with 100% away supporters if it was an question of £8m or zero.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,897
    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    What I think they’re wanting is assurances from government, that either the matches go ahead as planned, or they are compensated for the empty stadia - with “you wouldn’t want to see them played in England now, would you?” as the kicker.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,874

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,874
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    The discussion on PB also assumes that not one of the teams will have problems with covid forcing them to pull out anyway.
    Scrums are a super spreaders delight.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,245
    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222
    Now I don't install antivirus software anymore (Microsoft's own is more than good enough) but for those that do....

    Cory Doctorow
    @doctorow
    This is fucking wild. Norton "Antivirus" now sneakily installs cryptomining software on your computer, and then SKIMS A COMMISSION.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,896
    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    Pupils up to GCSE, but no objection to them being termed students after that.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,361

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    No, but even on telly it's a lot less fun without a crowd.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222
    edited January 5

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    It will depend on the exact terms of the BBC and ITV contracts - I can easily imagine there are clauses in them that may have unintended consequences in scenarios that would never normally occur....
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,597
    edited January 5
    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,897

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    He misses the point, which is that the account was engaging in both platform manipulation of Twitter, and their actual stories were mostly just headlines from other media without attribution, which is copyright infringement when done on a large scale and for commercial reasons.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited January 5

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    Now I am in general very uncomfortable with social media's power to just deperson people. However, the claim of manipulation I think refers to more than they just using clickbait and had found the perfect "tweet" formulation to gain maximum push from the algorithm. I took that more likely to be referring to using automated / paid bots to artificially boost the traffic.

    The fact they banned the whole network of accounts and a personal account suggests twitter thinks their infringement is more than just some minor bending of the rules. And also the guy behind it, total radio silence.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,146
    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier the preferred name for grandmother.
    Yes indeed. Jilly Cooper once said that she would much rather her children say "fuck" than "pardon".
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,874
    edited January 5

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,980

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    The claim of manipulation I think refers to more than they just using clickbait and had found the perfect "tweet" formulation to gain maximum push from the algorithm. I took that more likely to be referring to using automated / paid bots to artificially boost the traffic.

    The fact they banned the whole network of accounts and a personal account suggests twitter thinks their infringement is more than just some minor bending of the rules.
    According to this twitter thread, they weren't doing anything that many other large media companies do all the time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,245
    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    No, but even on telly it's a lot less fun without a crowd.
    What I'm wondering is whether the other nations Rugby organisations would stand to lose money or not if the games are played in England.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,146

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    Pupils up to GCSE, but no objection to them being termed students after that.
    OK, students from and including A Level - we'll compromise at that.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,833

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    A brilliant piece of investigative reporting into planning fandangos on Teesside. Local Tories up in arms about housing proposal, but their mate the mayor is silent. Then you look at who his donors are...

    https://t.co/jmtLLvW591

    Planning inspectorate grants permission for houses.

    Sorry but any sane person would do the same as what is done has been done and clearly Stockton don’t have decent planners*

    * this is a given, when the top rate for a public sector planner is £40,000 anyone good moves to the private sector quickly.
    Point is that people don't want them. Tory voters. Tory MP. Despite me being told the opposite. Nor does having a local plan and shitloads of houses being built protect you from being overridden by the same planning inspector. Despite being told "if you had a local plan you can stop these developments".

    I did enjoy the dig into who the mayor's donors are. This is twice now he has trampled on a local Tory MP - the previous mega coalition of Tories all firing on the same front down there is collapsing fast.
    Go and read the appeal statement itself - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=45473973

    Stockton council basically gives it the nod as the traffic scheme is redesigned.

    If you point is that a mayor isn't trying to get involved in planning appeals than that makes sense - no member of the general public should...
    The mayor is an elected official with planning powers and responsibilities. Not exactly a 'member of the public'.
    The Tees Valley mayor has planning responsibilities? Because quoting from https://www.stockton.gov.uk/our-council/elections-and-voting/elections-and-past-results/tees-valley-combined-authority-mayoral-election/

    The Mayor and Combined Authority do not replace, nor can they overrule, local councils.

    And planning especially development control is the responsibility of the local council...

    Anything else you would like to say without checking basic facts?

    I await evidence to contradict the above or an apology...

    According to the Mayor's powers screengrabbed in the report he DOES have some input though. In law nobody can overrule the planning inspector so its not like the council have that power either, or even the SofS. So you've put up a straw man.

    Vickers and the local Tories Do Not Want houses going up everywhere. Have successfully campaigned on this for years. Blaming the Labour council has been rich pickings but as there is now a local plan they can't do that any more.

    So having been voted in on a platform of stopping such things, Vickers and his former council colleagues wanted support from Houchen. Who despite having the ability to intervene as another powerful voice against this chose not to. With donations from the developers on the public record.

    Houchen has done quite a bit of this recently. He absolutely shish-kebabbed Jacob Young in Redcar who can campaigned to save the Dorman Long tower which Houchen promptly demolished without even consulting him.
    According to the screengrab in the report, the major has limited powers to undertake his own developments. And for housing those relate to reviewing housing needs, not asserting control over Planning Permissions.



    The chap is also pretty ignorant:

    So despite the fact that Stockton Borough has a local plan in place the planning inspector is not averse to setting that aside at will.

    If he had any idea, he would be exploring what the laid down process is for Planning Appeals, and the relevant legal precedents - "setting it aside at will" is just conspiracy theory level stuff.
  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737
    edited January 5
    eek said:

    Betting post on SNP constituencies

    There seem to be 20 or so where a bit of careful planning locally could result in a none SNP winner


    Patrick English
    @PME_Politics
    We've had Walls, Halos, and Heartlands. Now how about we get our very own Belt?

    Everyone, meet the "Yellow Belt".

    20 SNP seats where:
    Yellow circle Majority is under 10%, OR
    Flag of United Kingdom The 'Pro-Union' vote is underperforming based on demographics


    https://patrickenglish.substack.com/p/an-absolute-yellow-belter

    Depends on on how well the SNP does overall, if they get over 45% of the constituency vote they will completely dominate anyway. In the latest Redfield poll, despite Labour moving back into 2nd place the SNP lead over Labour is still the same as 2015. On those figures, only East Lothian is a sort of credible target for Labour.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,980
    Sandpit said:

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    He misses the point, which is that the account was engaging in both platform manipulation of Twitter, and their actual stories were mostly just headlines from other media without attribution, which is copyright infringement when done on a large scale and for commercial reasons.
    All the tweets I saw from them had a link to the original media article. Doesn't that count as attribution?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,310
    eek said:

    Now I don't install antivirus software anymore (Microsoft's own is more than good enough) but for those that do....

    Cory Doctorow
    @doctorow
    This is fucking wild. Norton "Antivirus" now sneakily installs cryptomining software on your computer, and then SKIMS A COMMISSION.

    Scummy, but it isn't turned on by default

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/no-easy-way-to-uninstall-norton-crypto/
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    The claim of manipulation I think refers to more than they just using clickbait and had found the perfect "tweet" formulation to gain maximum push from the algorithm. I took that more likely to be referring to using automated / paid bots to artificially boost the traffic.

    The fact they banned the whole network of accounts and a personal account suggests twitter thinks their infringement is more than just some minor bending of the rules.
    There are two assumptions here that don't have any validation

    Steven Bartlett
    @SteveBartlettSC
    From everything I’ve seen, I believe someone was unhappy with the reach and influence of the channel and had a word with someone at Twitter and asked for it to be removed.

    They have done nothing that other media companies on twitter don’t do every single day.

    I suspect the issue is that they were pulling tricks to maximise reach but I don't believe someone had a word that resulted in them being removed and I suspect they were doing things other media companies weren't doing (mainly because they were way better than Sky sports and others in getting that reach).
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,896
    edited January 5
    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Supper is the one that screams privilege.

    Either that, or you’re in a painting by Leonardo.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited January 5
    Andy_JS said:

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    The claim of manipulation I think refers to more than they just using clickbait and had found the perfect "tweet" formulation to gain maximum push from the algorithm. I took that more likely to be referring to using automated / paid bots to artificially boost the traffic.

    The fact they banned the whole network of accounts and a personal account suggests twitter thinks their infringement is more than just some minor bending of the rules.
    According to this twitter thread, they weren't doing anything that many other large media companies do all the time.
    That's what I mean, this is why I don't think things are straight forward as they are doing a bit of retweeting among their network of accounts.

    I have always been rather suspicious of how fast their growth was. Major new brands don't build following that quickly, let alone for a very niche politics account, and the massive amount of instant engagement they got.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,361
    eek said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    I guess the logic goes

    Home Support > closed doors > away

    but the reality is a question of money and the Welsh / Scottish Rugby Unions would probably accept a "home" game with 100% away supporters if it was an question of £8m or zero.
    Interestingly, I have seen it argued that the crowd matters relatively little for home advantage.
    Men, in a competitive environment, get a testosterone boost. This boost is greater in what they perceive as home territory. There are obvious evolutionary reasons why this might be so, though only 'obvious' in a fairly superficial sense: evolution is a complicated beast where obvious doesn't always equal true. Anyway, thus, all else being equal, the home side have more testosterone flowing around their bodies. So home advantage is more important in rugby than it is in, say, snooker.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,897
    eek said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    I guess the logic goes

    Home Support > closed doors > away

    but the reality is a question of money and the Welsh / Scottish Rugby Unions would probably accept a "home" game with 100% away supporters if it was an question of £8m or zero.
    The actual logic, for the 6N and the RFUs, is Home support > another full ground somewhere else > behind closed doors.

    The SRFU would rather play in (say) Newcastle, than an empty Murrayfield, for both the atmosphere and the money.

    60k fans, £100 an average ticket, is £6m match day revenue, plus a load of F&B, retail and other sources of cash.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford is still some money compared to none at all.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,980
    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    When I was at school you were first called a student when you joined the sixth form at 16 or 17. "Sixth form student" seems like a common phrase to me.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited January 5
    eek said:

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    The claim of manipulation I think refers to more than they just using clickbait and had found the perfect "tweet" formulation to gain maximum push from the algorithm. I took that more likely to be referring to using automated / paid bots to artificially boost the traffic.

    The fact they banned the whole network of accounts and a personal account suggests twitter thinks their infringement is more than just some minor bending of the rules.
    There are two assumptions here that don't have any validation

    Steven Bartlett
    @SteveBartlettSC
    From everything I’ve seen, I believe someone was unhappy with the reach and influence of the channel and had a word with someone at Twitter and asked for it to be removed.

    They have done nothing that other media companies on twitter don’t do every single day.

    I suspect the issue is that they were pulling tricks to maximise reach but I don't believe someone had a word that resulted in them being removed and I suspect they were doing things other media companies weren't doing (mainly because they were way better than Sky sports and others in getting that reach).
    I find this guy reaction, who has made millions from running social media campaigns slightly odd. He must know the tricks of the trade and where the line is, what twitter will and won't allow. You don't have to be an expert in social media marketing to know paid followers and engagement has been widely abused tactic for years. Instead, he seems to have gone tin foil territory, rather than occam's razor, they have been up to something against TOS.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,597

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Supper is the one that screams privilege.

    Either that, or you’re in a painting by Leonardo.
    Yes, those are examples of 3-tier vocabulary. Supper is to dinner what Granny is to Grandma, where dinner is to tea what Grandma is to Nan. I have dinner and had a Grandma. I'm not posh enough for supper or Granny.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,890

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,833
    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Um. These are problematic.

    A pudding is a very specific thing sometime - rice pudding, Yorkshire Pudding (imagine putting your Blackberry Vinegar on a "Yorkshire Dessert".)

    A lounge is more relaxed than a sitting room.

    Agree what is more abrupt.

    Dinner and supper are really quite different.

    Toilet vs Loo? I thought loo was just more informal. Though I have known people use "lusitania".
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,583

    Roger said:

    It's the lawlessness that might do it for this government.

    I've had three motor scooters stolen in the last 14 months. The second was filmed on two separate CCTV cameras. The police were inaccessible on all three occasions. The only way of contacting them is online or dialling 999 which mustn't be used other than in an emergency "or you could be putting someone's life at risk" .

    Having done a little detective work online it appears these thefts have reached epidemic proportions. The common thread is we don't have a functioning police force.

    Welcome to the world of de-prioritised crime.

    A farmer I knew never could get the police interested in the steady stream of thefts over the years.

    When he started putting a roof on an ancient stone walled building (a farm cottage that hadn't been lived in since year X and was just the walls and grass) to create a secure store for some equipment, the planning officers and police were out in force. Within hours of the day he started work.
    It is odd how many policemen are available when you don't want them. Yesterday when walking down a busy high st I saw a man with a coffee cup knocking on car windows begging for money. He was literally weaving in and out of cars. The motorists seemed panicked. Partly I suppose from having a bearded man standing beside their car expecting them to open their window during a pandemic.

    I was pretty sure he was going to get knocked down so I better let the police know before remembering that there was no way of doing that....
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,361

    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    No, but even on telly it's a lot less fun without a crowd.
    What I'm wondering is whether the other nations Rugby organisations would stand to lose money or not if the games are played in England.
    I don't think they would.
    Wales played home games at Wembley for a few years.
    The only way they'dlose money is if they could sell fewer tickets. Here the limiting factor is stadium capacity rather than demand.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,597
    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    I guess the logic goes

    Home Support > closed doors > away

    but the reality is a question of money and the Welsh / Scottish Rugby Unions would probably accept a "home" game with 100% away supporters if it was an question of £8m or zero.
    Interestingly, I have seen it argued that the crowd matters relatively little for home advantage.
    Men, in a competitive environment, get a testosterone boost. This boost is greater in what they perceive as home territory. There are obvious evolutionary reasons why this might be so, though only 'obvious' in a fairly superficial sense: evolution is a complicated beast where obvious doesn't always equal true. Anyway, thus, all else being equal, the home side have more testosterone flowing around their bodies. So home advantage is more important in rugby than it is in, say, snooker.
    Possibly explains why famous away victories are often achieved through lightning "raiding" tactics - get in and out fast, steal all the cattle and burn the huts, then scarper.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,403
    edited January 5

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Supper is the one that screams privilege.

    Either that, or you’re in a painting by Leonardo.
    I shall point this out next time my partner sniffs disapprovingly as the aroma of a white puddin' supper permeates the house.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,005
    Quiz question. At which venue was the lowest attendance recorded during Euro 2020?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    The dinner one is wrong – dinner is fine as long as it's in the evening, but avoid tea to mean a meal.

    It's because francophone words were introduced too sound posh, and therefore are not correct.

    Serviette and settee are particularly egregious.

    I don't like kids either, but it's hard to avoid, I try children or – better – people.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,341

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    I think the person tweeting there has hugely over interpreted and twisted Twitter's response to claim the reason was that News For All retweeted Politics For All.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,723
    RobD said:

    eek said:

    Now I don't install antivirus software anymore (Microsoft's own is more than good enough) but for those that do....

    Cory Doctorow
    @doctorow
    This is fucking wild. Norton "Antivirus" now sneakily installs cryptomining software on your computer, and then SKIMS A COMMISSION.

    Scummy, but it isn't turned on by default

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/no-easy-way-to-uninstall-norton-crypto/
    The fact it's not on by default is fairly irrelevant as it would be easy enough to 'accidentally' turn it on. There's no way they should be putting it anywhere near customer's computers.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,896

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Supper is the one that screams privilege.

    Either that, or you’re in a painting by Leonardo.
    I shall point this out next time my partner sniffs disapprovingly as the aroma of a white puddin' supper permeates the house.
    Sounds delish!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,194
    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
    Could the NFL setup be used ?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
    Eh?

    • Twickenham
    • White Hart Lane
    • Old Trafford
    • Anfield
    • St James' Park
    • Highbury (yes, I know, I refuse)
    • Eastlands
    • Wembley

    All big stadiums with a decent geographical spread.

    It's a great idea.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,833
    edited January 5
    eek said:

    Now I don't install antivirus software anymore (Microsoft's own is more than good enough) but for those that do....

    Cory Doctorow
    @doctorow
    This is fucking wild. Norton "Antivirus" now sneakily installs cryptomining software on your computer, and then SKIMS A COMMISSION.

    Is this a surprise?

    I once had to uninstall Norton Antivirus manually in the 1990s, and it was never allowed back.

    It is like one of those Xenomorph Facehuggers from Alien.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,897
    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    He misses the point, which is that the account was engaging in both platform manipulation of Twitter, and their actual stories were mostly just headlines from other media without attribution, which is copyright infringement when done on a large scale and for commercial reasons.
    All the tweets I saw from them had a link to the original media article. Doesn't that count as attribution?
    No they didn’t, the vast majority had no attribution at all.

    They started off as

    “BREAKING: This Story Just Happened”

    Then moved to:

    “BREAKING: This Story Just Happened - Newspaper”

    Then

    “BREAKING: This Story Just Happened. Via @newspaper”

    Then back to

    “BREAKING” This Story Just Happened”
    Followed by a second Tweet with a link to the actual story.

    Their whole point was to get you liking and retweeting *their* Tweet, without reference to where the story came from. The headline was verbatim from the newspaper, and appeared on the PFA Twitter with hundreds of likes before the newspaper’s own Twitter bot had even Tweeted the story. This meant (as that thread from Steve Bartlett above illustrates by accident) - that their Tweet ended up above the original media source on the Twitter algorithm, so gets widely distributed by Twitter as the ‘authoritative’ Tweet for the story. It’s platform manipulation.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,874
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford is still some money compared to none at all.
    Oh indeed.
    My issue is that out with Internationals the SRU has precious little income whatsoever. So any loss would be hard to bear.
    Although better than nowt as you say.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222

    eek said:

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    The claim of manipulation I think refers to more than they just using clickbait and had found the perfect "tweet" formulation to gain maximum push from the algorithm. I took that more likely to be referring to using automated / paid bots to artificially boost the traffic.

    The fact they banned the whole network of accounts and a personal account suggests twitter thinks their infringement is more than just some minor bending of the rules.
    There are two assumptions here that don't have any validation

    Steven Bartlett
    @SteveBartlettSC
    From everything I’ve seen, I believe someone was unhappy with the reach and influence of the channel and had a word with someone at Twitter and asked for it to be removed.

    They have done nothing that other media companies on twitter don’t do every single day.

    I suspect the issue is that they were pulling tricks to maximise reach but I don't believe someone had a word that resulted in them being removed and I suspect they were doing things other media companies weren't doing (mainly because they were way better than Sky sports and others in getting that reach).
    I find this guy reaction, who has made millions from running social media campaigns slightly odd. He must know the tricks of the trade and where the line is, what twitter will and won't allow. You don't have to be an expert in social media marketing to know paid followers and engagement has been widely abused tactic for years. Instead, he seems to have gone tin foil territory, rather than occam's razor, they have been up to something against TOS.
    Yep - that's why I found that tweet so interesting. I know enough about Social media to know I don't know anything about social media but even I look at Politics for All and go - so how many ways are they abusing things.

    And it's perfectly possible that they haven't - their accounts have been flagged just because they have been so success they've triggered a - this doesn't seem / shouldn't be possible flag, which given the stories they've been posting (and their lack of a need to do anything beyond repost a headline) is perfectly possible.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,597
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Um. These are problematic.

    A pudding is a very specific thing sometime - rice pudding, Yorkshire Pudding (imagine putting your Blackberry Vinegar on a "Yorkshire Dessert".)

    A lounge is more relaxed than a sitting room.

    Agree what is more abrupt.

    Dinner and supper are really quite different.

    Toilet vs Loo? I thought loo was just more informal. Though I have known people use "lusitania".
    They're established signifiers. To middling people like us supper is something you have late at night and dinner is the main meal. But to the people with domestic staff and independent means supper is the main evening meal.

    To many a lounge may be a more informal thing than sitting room; to upper-middles, lounge is something one just doesn't say. Toilet and Serviette likewise.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,245
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    It's the lawlessness that might do it for this government.

    I've had three motor scooters stolen in the last 14 months. The second was filmed on two separate CCTV cameras. The police were inaccessible on all three occasions. The only way of contacting them is online or dialling 999 which mustn't be used other than in an emergency "or you could be putting someone's life at risk" .

    Having done a little detective work online it appears these thefts have reached epidemic proportions. The common thread is we don't have a functioning police force.

    Welcome to the world of de-prioritised crime.

    A farmer I knew never could get the police interested in the steady stream of thefts over the years.

    When he started putting a roof on an ancient stone walled building (a farm cottage that hadn't been lived in since year X and was just the walls and grass) to create a secure store for some equipment, the planning officers and police were out in force. Within hours of the day he started work.
    It is odd how many policemen are available when you don't want them. Yesterday when walking down a busy high st I saw a man with a coffee cup knocking on car windows begging for money. He was literally weaving in and out of cars. The motorists seemed panicked. Partly I suppose from having a bearded man standing beside their car expecting them to open their window during a pandemic.

    I was pretty sure he was going to get knocked down so I better let the police know before remembering that there was no way of doing that....
    A chap I knew, who though some personal circumstance came down in the world a bit and ended up in a flat on a rough estate told me the following.

    The local corner shop had a problem with shoplifting - usual drug addicts etc. Police would occasionally pick them up. But with no custodial sentences they would be back within days...

    A local chap who bought his paper there, suggested to the corner shop owner joining his private drinking club. Monthly membership etc. But suggested that it wasn't really his kind of place.

    The shop owner joined. Apparently it took a little time for the word to spread, and a few drug addicts got a bit of a tune up before they realised the New Order Of Things. But all good after that.....
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,361
    edited January 5
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Um. These are problematic.

    A pudding is a very specific thing sometime - rice pudding, Yorkshire Pudding (imagine putting your Blackberry Vinegar on a "Yorkshire Dessert".)

    A lounge is more relaxed than a sitting room.

    Agree what is more abrupt.

    Dinner and supper are really quite different.

    Toilet vs Loo? I thought loo was just more informal. Though I have known people use "lusitania".
    @TimS, this is fascinating. Could you elucidate please, as I've never understood this? Which is the posh one in those circumstances? And is it simply one being posh and one not posh, or are there other layers too?
    (I'm guessing the latter ones are the posh ones, from the clue of 'supper' - which is a word I am very happy to use in the context of a meal you have after your main evening meal - some toast before bed, for example. And in no other circumstances. (I use the word 'main evening meal' advisedly as thousands of hours can be lost arguing over lunch vs dinner vs tea, and resolved easily by 'dinner' referring to the size of a meal rather than it's time of day. FWIW, I usually use the words 'lunch' and 'tea', and reserve 'dinner' for special occasions. I also talk about 'going out for tea', but only to be awkwardly northern, not in any seriousness.)
    Edit - also, where does 'couch' sit between sofa and settee? My mother-in-law always uses 'couch', which sounds slightly posh to my ears, though I'm possibly slightly posher than she is.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,005
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
    Could the NFL setup be used ?
    Lol, no. Leaving aside the dimensions (NFL pitches are quite narrow) and markings, the rugby players would be subject to some serious carpet burns.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    Cookie said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    I guess the logic goes

    Home Support > closed doors > away

    but the reality is a question of money and the Welsh / Scottish Rugby Unions would probably accept a "home" game with 100% away supporters if it was an question of £8m or zero.
    Interestingly, I have seen it argued that the crowd matters relatively little for home advantage.
    Men, in a competitive environment, get a testosterone boost. This boost is greater in what they perceive as home territory. There are obvious evolutionary reasons why this might be so, though only 'obvious' in a fairly superficial sense: evolution is a complicated beast where obvious doesn't always equal true. Anyway, thus, all else being equal, the home side have more testosterone flowing around their bodies. So home advantage is more important in rugby than it is in, say, snooker.
    That's correct – one of the best sports articles I have ever read. Also explains why home advantage is even stronger in derby matches – despite there being no travel fatigue for the away team. And why home advantage in women's sport is minimal.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/feb/03/features.sportmonthly16

    (article is in two parts, part II linked at foot of part I above)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,403

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Supper is the one that screams privilege.

    Either that, or you’re in a painting by Leonardo.
    I shall point this out next time my partner sniffs disapprovingly as the aroma of a white puddin' supper permeates the house.
    Sounds delish!
    It is, but increasingly rare nowadays as the heartburn afterwards is murderous! Not helped by the standard precursor of 5 pints of something or other of course.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,123
    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    I claim credit for starting the 'kids' thread. Seems lazy to Mrs C. and myself, although we do use it in a casual sense sometimes.
    Anyway as a 60 & 70's Liberal and a committed European, lost causes aren't a problem.

    Inclined to think 'students' are over 16, whether at school or some form of college. Grandson 2, now at Uni was, over Christmas, explaining the difference in attitude in Year 12...... the Lower VIth ..... to his sister and one of his cousins, both of whom are currently in Year 11.

    Not sure about Lounge or sitting room; we have a lounge (or TV) area in our living room. And a dining area. But of course, we're OAP's who down-sized some years ago.
    Def. sofa. And dinner. Except on Sunday. Supper's later. Def. napkin, too, and toilet.
    And Mrs C is a Grannie. Not Granny. And def. not Nan.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,341
    Sandpit said:

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    He misses the point, which is that the account was engaging in both platform manipulation of Twitter, and their actual stories were mostly just headlines from other media without attribution, which is copyright infringement when done on a large scale and for commercial reasons.
    The really clever thing about PFA was the way they would feed in bogus made up stories amongst the stolen content. Because the stolen content was legitimate it gave the made up sensationalist nonsense more credibility.

    It's a tactic used by full on "fake news" sites. They setup a site republishing some innocuous source of freely syndicated news, local council PR releases is a popular choice, and then puts out the fake news piece in the middle of that. So when people check the veracity of the source they see a lot of other perfectly legitimate looking content.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    The Chinese city of Xian suspended its top official in charge of big data after the system powering the local health code app, a critical tool in China’s zero-Covid strategy, crashed for a second time.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3162192/lockdown-city-xian-suspends-data-chief-after-covid-19-tracing?module=storypackage&pgtype=homepage
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,897
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford is still some money compared to none at all.
    That would still sell out 70k tickets.

    They might not be the same 70k people that would have gone to Edinburgh or Rome, but it would still very much sell out.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 888

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
    Eh?

    • Twickenham
    • White Hart Lane
    • Old Trafford
    • Anfield
    • St James' Park
    • Highbury (yes, I know, I refuse)
    • Eastlands
    • Wembley

    All big stadiums with a decent geographical spread.

    It's a great idea.
    It is also completely barking in terms of spreading Covid. Wales & Scotland ban all crowds at stadiums in their nations. So instead the many thousands of fans cram onto buses and trains to go to watch in an English stadium. Nothing would do more to help the spread of Covid and probably be worse than just keeping their own stadiums open. The Welsh and Scottish fan bans would end up having completely the opposite impact to what was intended.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
    Ha, ha, and a beautiful pitch it is too. I was there over Christmas for the West Ham league cup game.

    Anyway, isn't NFL played there?


    (in reality I know it has a separate pitch!)
  • TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Supper is the one that screams privilege.

    Either that, or you’re in a painting by Leonardo.
    Interesting few posts. As far as I'm concerned the three main meals of the day are breakfast, dinner and tea. Supper is a light snack you might have not too long before bed. Anyone who has differing nomenclature to that outlined above is a barbarian.

    And 'scone' rhymes with 'moan'.

    So there.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,980
    edited January 5
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    It's the lawlessness that might do it for this government.

    I've had three motor scooters stolen in the last 14 months. The second was filmed on two separate CCTV cameras. The police were inaccessible on all three occasions. The only way of contacting them is online or dialling 999 which mustn't be used other than in an emergency "or you could be putting someone's life at risk" .

    Having done a little detective work online it appears these thefts have reached epidemic proportions. The common thread is we don't have a functioning police force.

    Welcome to the world of de-prioritised crime.

    A farmer I knew never could get the police interested in the steady stream of thefts over the years.

    When he started putting a roof on an ancient stone walled building (a farm cottage that hadn't been lived in since year X and was just the walls and grass) to create a secure store for some equipment, the planning officers and police were out in force. Within hours of the day he started work.
    It is odd how many policemen are available when you don't want them. Yesterday when walking down a busy high st I saw a man with a coffee cup knocking on car windows begging for money. He was literally weaving in and out of cars. The motorists seemed panicked. Partly I suppose from having a bearded man standing beside their car expecting them to open their window during a pandemic.

    I was pretty sure he was going to get knocked down so I better let the police know before remembering that there was no way of doing that....
    It seems like the police are interested in everything except crime, especially petty crime.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,688
    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Or...

    - Front room
    - Eh?
    - Couch
    - Tea
    - What's one of them?
    - Bog

  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,493

    The Chinese city of Xian suspended its top official in charge of big data after the system powering the local health code app, a critical tool in China’s zero-Covid strategy, crashed for a second time.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3162192/lockdown-city-xian-suspends-data-chief-after-covid-19-tracing?module=storypackage&pgtype=homepage

    Can't help thinking 'suspend' in a Chinese context has a more sinister implication than it would around here.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    I claim credit for starting the 'kids' thread. Seems lazy to Mrs C. and myself, although we do use it in a casual sense sometimes.
    Anyway as a 60 & 70's Liberal and a committed European, lost causes aren't a problem.

    Inclined to think 'students' are over 16, whether at school or some form of college. Grandson 2, now at Uni was, over Christmas, explaining the difference in attitude in Year 12...... the Lower VIth ..... to his sister and one of his cousins, both of whom are currently in Year 11.

    Not sure about Lounge or sitting room; we have a lounge (or TV) area in our living room. And a dining area. But of course, we're OAP's who down-sized some years ago.
    Def. sofa. And dinner. Except on Sunday. Supper's later. Def. napkin, too, and toilet.
    And Mrs C is a Grannie. Not Granny. And def. not Nan.
    My grandma, RIP, who was very much Old Labour working class proper in her ways, said to me: "You only have lounges on boats." I learned never to use it!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,846
    eek said:

    Now I don't install antivirus software anymore (Microsoft's own is more than good enough) but for those that do....

    Cory Doctorow
    @doctorow
    This is fucking wild. Norton "Antivirus" now sneakily installs cryptomining software on your computer, and then SKIMS A COMMISSION.

    I hope they are sued to bankruptcy for that sort of behaviour.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216

    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
    Ha, ha, and a beautiful pitch it is too. I was there over Christmas for the West Ham league cup game.

    Anyway, isn't NFL played there?


    (in reality I know it has a separate pitch!)
    The Spurs setup is incredible. They roll the footy pitch under one of the stands, and the NFL pitch is underneath.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsQZnyCH37M
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    Aitch with a huh is the ultimate non-U.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,597
    Cookie said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    Um. These are problematic.

    A pudding is a very specific thing sometime - rice pudding, Yorkshire Pudding (imagine putting your Blackberry Vinegar on a "Yorkshire Dessert".)

    A lounge is more relaxed than a sitting room.

    Agree what is more abrupt.

    Dinner and supper are really quite different.

    Toilet vs Loo? I thought loo was just more informal. Though I have known people use "lusitania".
    @TimS, this is fascinating. Could you elucidate please, as I've never understood this? Which is the posh one in those circumstances? And is it simply one being posh and one not posh, or are there other layers too?
    (I'm guessing the latter ones are the posh ones, from the clue of 'supper' - which is a word I am very happy to use in the context of a meal you have after your main evening meal - some toast before bed, for example. And in no other circumstances. (I use the word 'main evening meal' advisedly as thousands of hours can be lost arguing over lunch vs dinner vs tea, and resolved easily by 'dinner' referring to the size of a meal rather than it's time of day. FWIW, I usually use the words 'lunch' and 'tea', and reserve 'dinner' for special occasions. I also talk about 'going out for tea', but only to be awkwardly northern, not in any seriousness.)
    Generally the non-French ones are the posh ones. As I understand it, as a kind of backlash to perceived middle Hyacinth Bucket affectations by the "new money".

    I came from a middle-middle family that used a mixture of the French and non-French versions but really got to understand the social significance of these words at university when surrounded by people from a wholly different background, many of whom had supper with napkins, went to the loo and loved dear old Granny.

    It was discussed and codified in the 50s and 60s and popularised by Nancy Mitford. Useful Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,005

    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
    Ha, ha, and a beautiful pitch it is too. I was there over Christmas for the West Ham league cup game.

    Anyway, isn't NFL played there?


    (in reality I know it has a separate pitch!)
    The Spurs setup is incredible. They roll the footy pitch under one of the stands, and the NFL pitch is underneath.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsQZnyCH37M
    I'm supposed to be going to the toilet seat on 16 January, assuming COVID doesn't intervene.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    tlg86 said:

    Quiz question. At which venue was the lowest attendance recorded during Euro 2020?

    Interesting one.

    Hmm. The Olympic Stadium, Rome?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    I guess the logic goes

    Home Support > closed doors > away

    but the reality is a question of money and the Welsh / Scottish Rugby Unions would probably accept a "home" game with 100% away supporters if it was an question of £8m or zero.
    The actual logic, for the 6N and the RFUs, is Home support > another full ground somewhere else > behind closed doors.

    The SRFU would rather play in (say) Newcastle, than an empty Murrayfield, for both the atmosphere and the money.

    60k fans, £100 an average ticket, is £6m match day revenue, plus a load of F&B, retail and other sources of cash.
    Scotland at St James' Park would be sensational. They would take over the city.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,846
    Sandpit said:

    Thread on Politics For All.

    Sounding a bit murky...

    https://twitter.com/SteveBartlettSC/status/1478493053321195525

    He misses the point, which is that the account was engaging in both platform manipulation of Twitter, and their actual stories were mostly just headlines from other media without attribution, which is copyright infringement when done on a large scale and for commercial reasons.
    Not sure whether I'm okay with Twitter banning politics for all, but I'd decided they were misleading a while ago. This thread shows a good example.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TrollZoo/status/1389547185306484740
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,194
    Coventry City and Wasps share the same pitch, when I went there over crimbo they played poorly but the pitch was in excellent nick.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,616
    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    I'm an almost even mix on that list (lounge, sorry/what, sofa, dinner, toilet - agnostic on serviette/napkin). Not sure whether I'm an oik with pretensions or a posho trying to speak street!

    What's the class identifier re grandmother? Granny/grandma/nan/nanny? Growing up, I had a granny and a nan, both of whom were definitely working class. My kids have a granny and grandma.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    Desperation as China’s locked down cities pay price of zero-Covid strategy

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/desperation-as-chinas-locked-down-cities-pay-price-of-zero-covid-strategy

    Guardian not so keen on zero-covid anymore.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694
    AlistairM said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
    Eh?

    • Twickenham
    • White Hart Lane
    • Old Trafford
    • Anfield
    • St James' Park
    • Highbury (yes, I know, I refuse)
    • Eastlands
    • Wembley

    All big stadiums with a decent geographical spread.

    It's a great idea.
    It is also completely barking in terms of spreading Covid. Wales & Scotland ban all crowds at stadiums in their nations. So instead the many thousands of fans cram onto buses and trains to go to watch in an English stadium. Nothing would do more to help the spread of Covid and probably be worse than just keeping their own stadiums open. The Welsh and Scottish fan bans would end up having completely the opposite impact to what was intended.
    In other words, exactly the same model as New Year's Eve, whereby thousands of Scots partied in Newcastle!
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 277


    Essentially their difference from your friends is that they see a high level of uncertainty and they attach a lot more importance to minimising uncertain risk than to going to (or even organing) crowded events if they don't have to. Most of them are either somewhat vulnerable or they have relatives who are. I think they'd all accept that there's a scale of risk/benefit and they would expect to move along it (one way or the other) as the situation devleops. Is that all that different in principle from most people everywhere, even if they place themselves currently at a different point in the range?

    Lots of good stuff here, but especially this -- people have very different reactions to high uncertainty. Some of the academic work on risks picks out varying 'archetypes' -- in the absence of solid data people tend to fall back on their 'model of the world', which might be "it's basically stable and taking calculated risks generally works out ok in the end", or "it's unstable and you should default to minimising deviation from status quo, adopt precautionary principle", or "situations can be made safe by imposing and following regulations", etc. The same (necessarily incomplete and unclear) data can often be used in support of any of these worldviews.

    (This is cribbed from _Risk_ by John Adams.)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,766
    edited January 5
    MaxPB said:

    pm215 said:

    rkrkrk said:


    I hope and expect we are going to see a big rethink of people's priorities on the NHS. It feels obvious we have focused too much on efficiency and not on having spare capacity. The long-term workforce planning seems dire. People want to get involved, increases in applications to medicine, nursing etc. So let's increase places, at the start of the pipeline and all the way along. Oh and yeah, can we fix that stupid pension problem that penalizes work!

    We need to draw the link between proper NHS funding & not having to shut down activities when we get hit by a surge. Covid isn't going away - it will be a big pressure on the health system for a long, long time.

    Has the government put any policies in place yet to bolster the NHS and increase capacity over the medium to longer term? It's been clear since almost the start of the pandemic that winters were going to be a real strain. (Genuine question -- I tend to avoid the news, and "govt rolls out boring but effective changes" doesn't tend to get much coverage anyway...)
    No because no one wants to pay for it. Do you want income tax to go up to 25% and 45%?
    There'll be much talk of how one of the big Lessons Learnt is a need to ramp up NHS capacity but the funding for it will not follow and we'll carry on pretty much as before. This is what I predict.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,694

    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
    Ha, ha, and a beautiful pitch it is too. I was there over Christmas for the West Ham league cup game.

    Anyway, isn't NFL played there?


    (in reality I know it has a separate pitch!)
    The Spurs setup is incredible. They roll the footy pitch under one of the stands, and the NFL pitch is underneath.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsQZnyCH37M
    I've done the stadium tour – because my son is Spurs daft. I thought it would be boring but in fact it is fascinating and well worth the money. Recommended.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,350
    AlistairM said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
    Eh?

    • Twickenham
    • White Hart Lane
    • Old Trafford
    • Anfield
    • St James' Park
    • Highbury (yes, I know, I refuse)
    • Eastlands
    • Wembley

    All big stadiums with a decent geographical spread.

    It's a great idea.
    It is also completely barking in terms of spreading Covid. Wales & Scotland ban all crowds at stadiums in their nations. So instead the many thousands of fans cram onto buses and trains to go to watch in an English stadium. Nothing would do more to help the spread of Covid and probably be worse than just keeping their own stadiums open. The Welsh and Scottish fan bans would end up having completely the opposite impact to what was intended.
    Cram into the local pubs and hotels too. But the reverse also applies - other nations' fans go to Edinburgh or Cardiff ... so allowing the fans just ends up with the same situation.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,361

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    I claim credit for starting the 'kids' thread. Seems lazy to Mrs C. and myself, although we do use it in a casual sense sometimes.
    Anyway as a 60 & 70's Liberal and a committed European, lost causes aren't a problem.

    Inclined to think 'students' are over 16, whether at school or some form of college. Grandson 2, now at Uni was, over Christmas, explaining the difference in attitude in Year 12...... the Lower VIth ..... to his sister and one of his cousins, both of whom are currently in Year 11.

    Not sure about Lounge or sitting room; we have a lounge (or TV) area in our living room. And a dining area. But of course, we're OAP's who down-sized some years ago.
    Def. sofa. And dinner. Except on Sunday. Supper's later. Def. napkin, too, and toilet.
    And Mrs C is a Grannie. Not Granny. And def. not Nan.
    'Grannie'? I've never come across a Grannie before.
    My grandmothers were both Grannys, confusingly, and grandfathers were both Grandpas. They were differentiated by geography rather than names (Granny Marple and Granny Pinner). I quite like non-name related differentiators for grandparents.
    Boringly, my children's grandmothers are also both Grannys, differentiated by their first names. Though they have one Grandpa and one Grandad.
    Granny definitely strikes me as higher up the social scale than Nan or Nanny. Though no doubt the upper echelons have something all to themselves.
    In the East Midlands, the colloquial version of Nanny is Nonna - pronounced 'Nonnarr'. It sounds moronic in my view, but no doubt entirely sane if you grow up with it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,897

    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
    Ha, ha, and a beautiful pitch it is too. I was there over Christmas for the West Ham league cup game.

    Anyway, isn't NFL played there?


    (in reality I know it has a separate pitch!)
    The Spurs setup is incredible. They roll the footy pitch under one of the stands, and the NFL pitch is underneath.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsQZnyCH37M
    Wow, that’s very cool. Have never been to a pro American Football game, one for the bucket list.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,755
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    pm215 said:

    rkrkrk said:


    I hope and expect we are going to see a big rethink of people's priorities on the NHS. It feels obvious we have focused too much on efficiency and not on having spare capacity. The long-term workforce planning seems dire. People want to get involved, increases in applications to medicine, nursing etc. So let's increase places, at the start of the pipeline and all the way along. Oh and yeah, can we fix that stupid pension problem that penalizes work!

    We need to draw the link between proper NHS funding & not having to shut down activities when we get hit by a surge. Covid isn't going away - it will be a big pressure on the health system for a long, long time.

    Has the government put any policies in place yet to bolster the NHS and increase capacity over the medium to longer term? It's been clear since almost the start of the pandemic that winters were going to be a real strain. (Genuine question -- I tend to avoid the news, and "govt rolls out boring but effective changes" doesn't tend to get much coverage anyway...)
    No because no one wants to pay for it. Do you want income tax to go up to 25% and 45%?
    There'll be much talk of how one of the big Lessons Learnt is a need to ramp up NHS capacity but the funding for it will not follow and we will, once this Omicron wave is over, carry on pretty much as before. This is what I predict.
    Probably. Labour has spent the last decade moaning about NHS capacity every winter, and every winter the Tories ride out the crisis till spring. I doubt it will change now.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,597
    Selebian said:

    TimS said:

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    ISTM that "kids" is vaguely pejorative; horrid/horrible I would see more as a class indicator, likewise pudding and dessert; and movie is just going with the times as most people consume films on US streaming services and those films in any case are usually US-made.

    I see kids more as informal than pejorative. But if OKC sees it as pejorative I can see why.
    Horrid feels horribly Enid Blyton and twee. (I have actually read a good argument that horrid is the least horrible of the four horrible words, which, getting more horrible, are horrid, horrible, horrendous and horrific. So perhaps has a use as 'horrible, but not that horrible'.)
    Movie is just not as good a word as film. I have also seen an argument that movie denotes a certain sort of film - big Hollywood blockbuster - whereas film is its more thoughtful or arty counterpart. Again, I could get on board with that. But movie seems to just be used for all films nowadays. Sigh.
    And dessert just sounds to me like an affectation. Though I have an Irish friend who finds the word pudding hilarious - hears it as very English and therefore very posh, which is kind of the reverse of how I hear it.
    Never really had an issue with the horri family. Technically, what is horrible or horrendous is what makes you bristle, and horrid is the state you are consequently in on seeing something horrible.

    Cf suck and suckle: babies suck, mothers suckle.
    Objections to "kids" have completely floored me.

    There are many meanings "pudding", including "you great daft pudding".
    "Kids" it is a long lost cause. "Dessert" rather than pudding annoys still. I get irritated when "students" is used to describe under 18s at school rather than pupils.
    I think dessert is one of that long line of words with French origins considered "non-U" by the upper-middle snobs, with the Germanic or at least non-French version preferred. Others include:

    - Lounge vs sitting room
    - Pardon vs sorry or what
    - Settee vs sofa
    - Dinner vs supper (though dinner seems less frowned on than most)
    - Serviette vs napkin
    - Toilet vs loo

    And so on. The crucial dividing point between the lower-middle and upper-middle class. I don't know if it's true or urban myth that this came about during the Napoleonic wars as an anti-French thing. Almost as salient as a class identifier as the preferred name for grandmother.
    I'm an almost even mix on that list (lounge, sorry/what, sofa, dinner, toilet - agnostic on serviette/napkin). Not sure whether I'm an oik with pretensions or a posho trying to speak street!

    What's the class identifier re grandmother? Granny/grandma/nan/nanny? Growing up, I had a granny and a nan, both of whom were definitely working class. My kids have a granny and grandma.
    It's supposedly Granny, Grandma, Gran, Nan/Nana though as you say it's not as cut and dried as this. That said, I've not known anyone upper class who didn't have Granny.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,361

    AlistairM said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Well, if Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (not sure about Italy) are all banning crowds from stadia, and England are offering the organisers full houses of paying spectators, then the organisers are going to take the money.

    6N tickets are gold dust at the best of times, they’ll have no problem selling out every venue they can find, even at short notice.

    Yes, the politics of it will be awful in the other nations.
    Although it also allows Sturgeon and Drakeford an easy hit at explaining differential infection rates (“stupid English”)
    Previous posters applauded this story as a political masterpiece. It really, really isn’t.

    Kudos to Charles for thinking twice. All too rare in the modern iteration of the Conservative Party.
    5 Feb through to 19 March.

    Judging by SA, could we be towards clear of Omicron by then?

    I'd leave them where they were planned, and let the local Govts take the political benefit or hit.
    I think the game here is to try and force the Welsh / Scottish Governments to allow the games to go ahead with full admission, foot the bills or accept the games will be played in England. By talking about playing the home matches in England the Governments are going to have to make a decision.
    A question - if spectators are completely banned, what benefit is there to country X in playing a game behind closed doors?
    Well. There's the TV money lost I guess from not playing.
    Rugby Union is almost totally dependent on money from Internationals.
    How does the TV money flow - does it matter *where* the game is played?
    Yes but. Unusually, ticket sales are a high proportion of Six Nations income. Prices are high, not to mention corporate, and every game outside Italy is sold out.
    So the question is. If England then where? There are precious few stadia big enough. And then, the corporate.
    Scotland v Italy at Old Trafford. Would they sell the corporate out? And then, who gets the money? MUFC would want a big cut.
    Then there is the regular catering and bar income.
    Eh?

    • Twickenham
    • White Hart Lane
    • Old Trafford
    • Anfield
    • St James' Park
    • Highbury (yes, I know, I refuse)
    • Eastlands
    • Wembley

    All big stadiums with a decent geographical spread.

    It's a great idea.
    It is also completely barking in terms of spreading Covid. Wales & Scotland ban all crowds at stadiums in their nations. So instead the many thousands of fans cram onto buses and trains to go to watch in an English stadium. Nothing would do more to help the spread of Covid and probably be worse than just keeping their own stadiums open. The Welsh and Scottish fan bans would end up having completely the opposite impact to what was intended.
    In other words, exactly the same model as New Year's Eve, whereby thousands of Scots partied in Newcastle!
    Did they though? I saw predictions of this, but then no stories of what actually happened. Were Newcastle and Carlisle full of Scots? Were Bristol and, I don't know, Chester, Hereford and Shrewsbury full of the Welsh?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited January 5
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    Off thread already (sorry), there is a story in the Telegraph that the Six Nations might be played entirely in England. To me, that would be vastly preferable to empty stadia in Scotland and Wales (and Ireland and France?). And getting to Bristol, say, won't be massively more inconvenient for Welsh fans than getting to Cardiff. But I can't see the politics of it panning out. Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford would be furious.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. You could have Wales' home ground at Old Trafford, Scotland's at St James' Park, Ireland's at Anfield, France's at White Hart Lane and Italy's at Wembley.

    Let's do it.
    No Rugby at the Lane please, will ruin our pitch.
    Ha, ha, and a beautiful pitch it is too. I was there over Christmas for the West Ham league cup game.

    Anyway, isn't NFL played there?


    (in reality I know it has a separate pitch!)
    The Spurs setup is incredible. They roll the footy pitch under one of the stands, and the NFL pitch is underneath.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsQZnyCH37M
    Wow, that’s very cool. Have never been to a pro American Football game, one for the bucket list.
    I normally go to one of the London game every year. I would say its a mixed bag if you aren't a big NFL fan. There is a lot of downtime and it makes the busted plays even more obvious (where as on the telly, its off to another game or an ad). But the moment where it comes together, especially if the running back break through and puts the after burners on is something to behold. Amazing what PED powered humans can do.

    I have never been to a big college game, the ones with 100k crowds. Thats on my bucket list.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-wXdCGlHb0

    NFL isn't like this.
This discussion has been closed.