On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
There is some vague sense to what @kinabalu is struggling to say. “Coloured person” or “coloureds” can be deemed offensive as they seem to define the whole person by their skin tone. Whereas “of colour” says this is a person who just happens to have a “colour”. I suspect that is the feeble logic underlying this
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
I see poor @kinabalu with his very limited IQ is struggling to express himself again. I don't know how you can tolerate debating with us poor idiots on here day after day.
That actually wasn’t - for once - a dig at @kinabalu
He admitted he toiled to work out the justification for “of colour” and I was agreeing with him that it is difficult, but it can sort-of be done
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
I have a radical idea. If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space. I'm pretty relaxed about guerrilla art criticism. If The People think Crusty Eye or Slave Bastard will look better in the harbour, let them put it in the harbour.
The Vorticists (mildly) rebuked the Suffragettes (in Blast 1 IIRC) for going into art galleries and defacing the art there.
This, however: "If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space", is bolleaux. The art was put there by the council which was voted in by the public. That is how art should be shown or not shown in public.
And also there's the retired colonel slippery slope argument watch out Winston in Whitehall.
Not noticed this but I've not had time to read Private Eye yet
Private Eye Magazine @PrivateEyeNews · 1h Radioactive sign We’re throwing money at French firm EDF to build our nuclear reactors. But the only operational model of their design suffered damaged fuel rods and a radioactive leak last year, causing France itself to halt any more construction. Full story in the new Eye, in shops now. Radioactive sign
We need those RR mini-reactors by the looks of things.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
There is some vague sense to what @kinabalu is struggling to say. “Coloured person” or “coloureds” can be deemed offensive as they seem to define the whole person by their skin tone. Whereas “of colour” says this is a person who just happens to have a “colour”. I suspect that is the feeble logic underlying this
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
I think to some extent the evolution of language here comes from the US context and makes less sense to us outside that context. "Coloured" was originally seen as the polite way to refer to non white people, mostly African Americans. Hence the NAACP, the US's most venerable civil rights organisation. But the word became associated with Jim Crow segregationist laws (eg "coloureds only" bathrooms etc) and so in the context of the US civil rights movement "Black" became the preferred word. Also because it involved owning and drawing pride from a word that might have seemed derogatory in the past. Hence "I'm black and I'm proud". But as the US has become more diverse and especially as the number of Hispanics and Asians has grown, "people of colour" has become a more useful term which encompasses not just African Americans. Of course all these are just words and have no inherent meaning, as all of you sister-fuckers know.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
As I say, I am no mathematician. Yet your claim that the Omicron IHR is broadly the same as Delta doesn't appear to withstand even the most trivial googling scrutiny.
Well, my figures are simply calculated from the most recent weekly hospitalisation figures at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ as a percentage of the weekly figures for positive tests - lagged by 10 days.
That gives 1.9%.
If you're claiming the real figure should be a factor of 10 smaller, it's up to you to explain why you think so. Or why my calculation is wrong. Or something.
Or maybe I'm simply naive to think simple arithmetic is still valid, and that we can't all just believe what we want to believe.
Surely we should be using the ONS infection figures as the denominator - i.e. the positive tests figure is a massive underestimate?
Quite possibly, but if we're comparing Omicron with Delta we'd better compare like with like. That's what I did, and the hospitalisation rate on that basis is virtually the same.
It may indeed be that the rate of positive tests has moved even further from the true infection rate than it was before. But it's now a factor of four bigger than before Omicron, and if the hospitalisation rate as a fraction of positive tests is the same as it was, then that should tell us something about the rate of hospitalisation that we can expect from the current infection rate, shouldn't it?
Is comparing daily infections to daily hospitalisation a valid metric ? Daily infections are measuring a change in infection whereas numbers in hospital on any day is measuring a total figure. Wouldn't hospitalisations vs prevalence of Covid on any day be a more correct metric ?
It's mixing up differentials and integrals I think..
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
I always imagine a word or words being spoken by a person with a strong Afrikaans accent, eg ‘a black’ v. ‘a black person’, or ‘coloureds’ v. ‘persons of colour’. It clarifies things a bit for me.
I hope you don't practise out loud. People will think you've got racist tourettes.
Friend of mine's wife (following still?) was on a train with her infant son. Sitting opposite a black guy. The child (5-6 yrs old) pointed at the black guy and said "you're a monkey".
And after a shocked, silent, awkward few moments my friend's wife prodded lovingly her child and said: "no, *you're* a monkey".
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
Not noticed this but I've not had time to read Private Eye yet
Private Eye Magazine @PrivateEyeNews · 1h Radioactive sign We’re throwing money at French firm EDF to build our nuclear reactors. But the only operational model of their design suffered damaged fuel rods and a radioactive leak last year, causing France itself to halt any more construction. Full story in the new Eye, in shops now. Radioactive sign
We need those RR mini-reactors by the looks of things.
Tbf we're not throwing money at the French. Hinckley Point C is fully funded by EDF and the state Chinese nuclear corporation. The deal is that they would get guaranteed above market rate prices for electricity generated. If it never generates electricity they never get paid.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
It's not a question of 0.2% "being adjusted up to" 1.9%, for heaven's sake!
The daily average hospitalisation rate to 2 January was 2180.
The daily average positive test rate to 23 December - 10 days before - was 111,000 based on date reported or 121,000 based on date of sample. Take your pick.
That gives a hospitalisation rate of 1.9%. If you don't believe me, I'm sure your device has a calculator facility.
Yes, I just meant that the discrepancy between the two figures can't be explained solely by lag. See my post @1:27 for an explanation as to why what you're doing isn't accurate. Or just see Max's more succinct version @1:30.
Well, I stated exactly what I did, and what I did was accurate. Of course our data are very incomplete, so the interpretation of the result is open to argument.
Max plucked some figure out of the air and came out with an answer an order of magnitude smaller. God knows where he got it from - he didn't explain. It's not open to argument because we don't know where on earth it came from. But if you find his figure more comforting, of course go ahead and believe there's nothing to worry about. That's how things work here now.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
I have a radical idea. If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space. I'm pretty relaxed about guerrilla art criticism. If The People think Crusty Eye or Slave Bastard will look better in the harbour, let them put it in the harbour.
It's just fucking inconvenient. All traffic directions through Tavistock entail an instruction to turn l or r at Drake's statue. Ditto exeter University and Sir redvers buller.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
42% of Tory voters want to keep statues of those involved in the slave trade on display, 42% to put them in a museum on those figures. An equal split. Just 9% want to destroy them.
57% of Labour voters want to put them in a museum, 19% to destroy them and 19% to keep them up
In almost all cases I think statues should stay where they are with an explanatory plaque if needed.
I do have one set of exceptions. I believe in the early 1900s a lot of confederate civil war statues were erected and although many might have been for genuine reasons in many cases it was for the purpose of intimidating the black population. If the latter I can see how these will still offend explanatory plaque or not and there if they do they should go.
Just like one parliament can't bind its successors, nor should one generation be able to bind its successors with their buildings or statues. A general presumption of let statues remain in place is fine, but not an all statues should stay forever regardless of merit or relevance. For a start we will run out of places to put them in prime locations if each future generation gets the same number as those from the past have taken.
It amuses me to think of the consequences of what you have said about my post. The vision of not being able to move for the bloody things. Consequently I have to agree with you.
Did you have a clue what my last sentence meant? A random word generator would have struggled to do better.
Not noticed this but I've not had time to read Private Eye yet
Private Eye Magazine @PrivateEyeNews · 1h Radioactive sign We’re throwing money at French firm EDF to build our nuclear reactors. But the only operational model of their design suffered damaged fuel rods and a radioactive leak last year, causing France itself to halt any more construction. Full story in the new Eye, in shops now. Radioactive sign
We need those RR mini-reactors by the looks of things.
Tbf we're not throwing money at the French. Hinckley Point C is fully funded by EDF and the state Chinese nuclear corporation. The deal is that they would get guaranteed above market rate prices for electricity generated. If it never generates electricity they never get paid.
Ah so the incentive is for them to build and run it even if its not safe? Phew! I thought we were doing something really stupid for a moment.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
I don't make the rules. Just seeking to delve a little. Cost me my soup, too, so I hope there was at least something of interest in it.
Fruity (and super super bright) Leon found something there, I see, which makes me glow.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
I have a radical idea. If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space. I'm pretty relaxed about guerrilla art criticism. If The People think Crusty Eye or Slave Bastard will look better in the harbour, let them put it in the harbour.
The Vorticists (mildly) rebuked the Suffragettes (in Blast 1 IIRC) for going into art galleries and defacing the art there.
This, however: "If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space", is bolleaux. The art was put there by the council which was voted in by the public. That is how art should be shown or not shown in public.
And also there's the retired colonel slippery slope argument watch out Winston in Whitehall.
It's just possible that a council committee is not the best judge of whether supposed art is use or ornament. As for Winston, I don't really care whether he ends up in the Thames or not.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
It's not a question of 0.2% "being adjusted up to" 1.9%, for heaven's sake!
The daily average hospitalisation rate to 2 January was 2180.
The daily average positive test rate to 23 December - 10 days before - was 111,000 based on date reported or 121,000 based on date of sample. Take your pick.
That gives a hospitalisation rate of 1.9%. If you don't believe me, I'm sure your device has a calculator facility.
Yes, I just meant that the discrepancy between the two figures can't be explained solely by lag. See my post @1:27 for an explanation as to why what you're doing isn't accurate. Or just see Max's more succinct version @1:30.
Well, I stated exactly what I did, and what I did was accurate. Of course our data are very incomplete, so the interpretation of the result is open to argument.
Max plucked some figure out of the air and came out with an answer an order of magnitude smaller. God knows where he got it from - he didn't explain. It's not open to argument because we don't know where on earth it came from. But if you find his figure more comforting, of course go ahead and believe there's nothing to worry about. That's how things work here now.
If we have 100,000 Covid cases on day one, and 110,000 on day 2 and hospitalisations on day one are 100,000 and hospitalisations on day 2 are 210,000 - then by your measure the IHR is 190% for day 2, not the 100% it should be ?
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
It's not a question of 0.2% "being adjusted up to" 1.9%, for heaven's sake!
The daily average hospitalisation rate to 2 January was 2180.
The daily average positive test rate to 23 December - 10 days before - was 111,000 based on date reported or 121,000 based on date of sample. Take your pick.
That gives a hospitalisation rate of 1.9%. If you don't believe me, I'm sure your device has a calculator facility.
Yes, I just meant that the discrepancy between the two figures can't be explained solely by lag. See my post @1:27 for an explanation as to why what you're doing isn't accurate. Or just see Max's more succinct version @1:30.
Well, I stated exactly what I did, and what I did was accurate. Of course our data are very incomplete, so the interpretation of the result is open to argument.
Max plucked some figure out of the air and came out with an answer an order of magnitude smaller. God knows where he got it from - he didn't explain. It's not open to argument because we don't know where on earth it came from. But if you find his figure more comforting, of course go ahead and believe there's nothing to worry about. That's how things work here now.
Chris given your predictions which may yet come to pass of 800k infections/day (bet is still out there if you're interested) I have a gift for you. You are now PM.
Yes, it's awful but gets worse. Braverman starts her tweet by saying: Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and must not be undermined. She then goes on to do precisely that; her next word is "However...." I'm not sure this is a well-judged intervention; I don't think juries will be seen as fair game in any culture war she wants to provoke.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
I have a radical idea. If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space. I'm pretty relaxed about guerrilla art criticism. If The People think Crusty Eye or Slave Bastard will look better in the harbour, let them put it in the harbour.
It's just fucking inconvenient. All traffic directions through Tavistock entail an instruction to turn l or r at Drake's statue. Ditto exeter University and Sir redvers buller.
Get yourself a sat nav, I reckon. By ready for statupocalypse.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
I have a radical idea. If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space. I'm pretty relaxed about guerrilla art criticism. If The People think Crusty Eye or Slave Bastard will look better in the harbour, let them put it in the harbour.
The Vorticists (mildly) rebuked the Suffragettes (in Blast 1 IIRC) for going into art galleries and defacing the art there.
This, however: "If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space", is bolleaux. The art was put there by the council which was voted in by the public. That is how art should be shown or not shown in public.
And also there's the retired colonel slippery slope argument watch out Winston in Whitehall.
It's just possible that a council committee is not the best judge of whether supposed art is use or ornament. As for Winston, I don't really care whether he ends up in the Thames or not.
That's as maybe. But a council committee is the democratic vehicle for deciding such things.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
It's not a question of 0.2% "being adjusted up to" 1.9%, for heaven's sake!
The daily average hospitalisation rate to 2 January was 2180.
The daily average positive test rate to 23 December - 10 days before - was 111,000 based on date reported or 121,000 based on date of sample. Take your pick.
That gives a hospitalisation rate of 1.9%. If you don't believe me, I'm sure your device has a calculator facility.
Yes, I just meant that the discrepancy between the two figures can't be explained solely by lag. See my post @1:27 for an explanation as to why what you're doing isn't accurate. Or just see Max's more succinct version @1:30.
Well, I stated exactly what I did, and what I did was accurate. Of course our data are very incomplete, so the interpretation of the result is open to argument.
Max plucked some figure out of the air and came out with an answer an order of magnitude smaller. God knows where he got it from - he didn't explain. It's not open to argument because we don't know where on earth it came from. But if you find his figure more comforting, of course go ahead and believe there's nothing to worry about. That's how things work here now.
ONS incidence against non-incidental overnight hospital patients. The actual infection rate against the actual number of patients in hospital for COVID.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
There is some vague sense to what @kinabalu is struggling to say. “Coloured person” or “coloureds” can be deemed offensive as they seem to define the whole person by their skin tone. Whereas “of colour” says this is a person who just happens to have a “colour”. I suspect that is the feeble logic underlying this
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
Of course some people might prefer to stick with "Oh god what are we calling them this week?" and leave it at that.
This is a useful calling card by which clueless reactionaries can recognize each other and raise a little chuckle amongst themselves.
I totally understand the need. Life's tough without that sort of thing.
Ha, yes, just as using the latest term for the group in question is also a calling card by which the painfully woke can recognise each other.
Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.
(And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....
Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
If you have a report that a disease + condition X = *orders* of magnitude more bad outcomes.... well, it is not surprising that the medics are going "hey, throw that out the window, things are different now" without further evidence.
We must have plenty of real world evidence now, either to the affirmative or to the contrary, given how many 'incidental' admissions we have sustained since omicron arrived. Has anyone run the numbers?
It has significantly increased, but most in hospital with covid are "For" covid rather than incidental admissions, still, and the "For covid" numbers have been climbing.
Note that the orange incidental admissions aren't there as a fraction of the whole but separately plotted to the blue "for" admissions. Wherever the orange is below the blue (everywhere) admissions for covid have been larger than incidental admissions.
It helps to an extent, but only to an extent. Incidental admissions must be quarantined from the non-covid patients (because hospital-acquired infections can be enough to kill a poorly patient recovering from other things), require PPE, and can end up making whatever the incidental patient was admitted for far worse (as a rule of thumb, adding covid to any illness or injury never helps matters).
But it does make it somewhat less of an impact, and reflects a lower infection hospitalisation rate (at least amongst the vaccinated, and it's looking like we're running out of unvaccinated/uninfected people. The USA, on the other hand, may be comprehensively fucked by this)
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
I have a radical idea. If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space. I'm pretty relaxed about guerrilla art criticism. If The People think Crusty Eye or Slave Bastard will look better in the harbour, let them put it in the harbour.
The Vorticists (mildly) rebuked the Suffragettes (in Blast 1 IIRC) for going into art galleries and defacing the art there.
This, however: "If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space", is bolleaux. The art was put there by the council which was voted in by the public. That is how art should be shown or not shown in public.
And also there's the retired colonel slippery slope argument watch out Winston in Whitehall.
It's just possible that a council committee is not the best judge of whether supposed art is use or ornament. As for Winston, I don't really care whether he ends up in the Thames or not.
If Winston went down however there would be all out culture war. Boris would order him to be put back up straight away and probably change the law to make toppling a statue of Churchill a criminal offence leading to 50 years in prison!
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
Cases have been broadly flat over the last ten days, and in any case certainly have not increased by a factor of 9.5, so there is no way that ~0.2% can possibly be adjusted up to ~1.9% just because of a ten day time lag.
It's not a question of 0.2% "being adjusted up to" 1.9%, for heaven's sake!
The daily average hospitalisation rate to 2 January was 2180.
The daily average positive test rate to 23 December - 10 days before - was 111,000 based on date reported or 121,000 based on date of sample. Take your pick.
That gives a hospitalisation rate of 1.9%. If you don't believe me, I'm sure your device has a calculator facility.
Yes, I just meant that the discrepancy between the two figures can't be explained solely by lag. See my post @1:27 for an explanation as to why what you're doing isn't accurate. Or just see Max's more succinct version @1:30.
Well, I stated exactly what I did, and what I did was accurate. Of course our data are very incomplete, so the interpretation of the result is open to argument.
Max plucked some figure out of the air and came out with an answer an order of magnitude smaller. God knows where he got it from - he didn't explain. It's not open to argument because we don't know where on earth it came from. But if you find his figure more comforting, of course go ahead and believe there's nothing to worry about. That's how things work here now.
Your figure is an accurate, but completely useless, estimate of the upper bound for the IHR. Upper bound, because it cannot possibly be any higher, and there are clear and convincing reasons (reinfections, incidental admissions, people not uploading positive LFT results) why it might be (significantly) lower. Max's estimate is a rough, but probably reasonably accurate, estimate of the actual IHR.
I would hope you agree that we should be basing policy off the latter and ignoring the former, but based on your posting history, I have some doubts.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
There is some vague sense to what @kinabalu is struggling to say. “Coloured person” or “coloureds” can be deemed offensive as they seem to define the whole person by their skin tone. Whereas “of colour” says this is a person who just happens to have a “colour”. I suspect that is the feeble logic underlying this
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
Your 4000 posts on the subject will be a somewhat less short and punchy contribution.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
There is some vague sense to what @kinabalu is struggling to say. “Coloured person” or “coloureds” can be deemed offensive as they seem to define the whole person by their skin tone. Whereas “of colour” says this is a person who just happens to have a “colour”. I suspect that is the feeble logic underlying this
However it is so attenuated and decadently trivial, and also so inconsistent - eg how come “blacks” and “blacks people” are still ok? - it comes over as pointless Woke nonsense
When the History of Western Decline is written, there will be a short but punchy chapter on word games like this
Of course some people might prefer to stick with "Oh god what are we calling them this week?" and leave it at that.
This is a useful calling card by which clueless reactionaries can recognize each other and raise a little chuckle amongst themselves.
I totally understand the need. Life's tough without that sort of thing.
Ha, yes, just as using the latest term for the group in question is also a calling card by which the painfully woke can recognise each other.
I guess there can be some of that, yes. On PB, though, there are more Clueless Reactionaries than Painfully Woke. Which I wouldn't change for the world. I need the friction. No friction no joy.
Not noticed this but I've not had time to read Private Eye yet
Private Eye Magazine @PrivateEyeNews · 1h Radioactive sign We’re throwing money at French firm EDF to build our nuclear reactors. But the only operational model of their design suffered damaged fuel rods and a radioactive leak last year, causing France itself to halt any more construction. Full story in the new Eye, in shops now. Radioactive sign
We need those RR mini-reactors by the looks of things.
Tbf we're not throwing money at the French. Hinckley Point C is fully funded by EDF and the state Chinese nuclear corporation. The deal is that they would get guaranteed above market rate prices for electricity generated. If it never generates electricity they never get paid.
Ah so the incentive is for them to build and run it even if its not safe? Phew! I thought we were doing something really stupid for a moment.
One would hope that the nuclear regulator would prevent such a thing from happening.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Clarifying the law is irrelevant really as juries can still ignore.
As I said earlier today, Nicola will likely wind down the restrictions and rhetoric over the next couple of weeks now that her "different to the English" point has been made. I don't think Drakeford is smart enough to do that, he's clearly a dimwit parish councillor that randomly got promoted due to Labour's lack of any fucks given about Wales.
Not a single high profile criminal case can now pass without the Attorney General - a person with no experience of criminal law - exploiting it for political gain.
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Not noticed this but I've not had time to read Private Eye yet
Private Eye Magazine @PrivateEyeNews · 1h Radioactive sign We’re throwing money at French firm EDF to build our nuclear reactors. But the only operational model of their design suffered damaged fuel rods and a radioactive leak last year, causing France itself to halt any more construction. Full story in the new Eye, in shops now. Radioactive sign
We need those RR mini-reactors by the looks of things.
Tbf we're not throwing money at the French. Hinckley Point C is fully funded by EDF and the state Chinese nuclear corporation. The deal is that they would get guaranteed above market rate prices for electricity generated. If it never generates electricity they never get paid.
Ah so the incentive is for them to build and run it even if its not safe? Phew! I thought we were doing something really stupid for a moment.
One would hope that the nuclear regulator would prevent such a thing from happening.
And I'm sure like every other part of the British state it would do a fantastic job in fulfilling its mandate.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Similar memories here. It's not a matter governed by linguistic logic as far as I can see so I don't find the question "how can 'coloured' be offensive when 'of colour' isn't?" to be particularly thorny or in fact that interesting. The answer is it has evolved to be so, based on various things. What things? I'm no expert but I can think of a couple of possibles. The apartheid link. Also the sense that, back in the old days, people would say "coloured" to avoid saying "black" as if that would be an insult (modern subtext, wtf should it be?) and they would often say it in a kind of whispered voice as if there was still something a little bit off there even with the 'politer' term. There'd be a certain embarrassment and a slight furtiveness in its use, is what I'm saying. I remember this quite well as a teenager at the time. Things are much better now, imo, despite the occasional pitfalls and bemusements that can befall a person.
But just now thinking about it, perhaps there is a proper meaningful linguistic difference between "coloured" and "of colour" in that the first speaks purely to shallow outward appearance whereas the second is freighted with a bit more. It (maybe) conjurs up something about the whole person. It (maybe) has more gravitas. Eg coloured can relate easily to objects. You can have coloured pencils, coloured contact lenses, but you'd never say pencils of colour or contact lenses of colour. So the point is, for objects "coloured" works but "of colour" doesn't, and for people it's the opposite. Just a thought. Could be bollox but it does illustrate how there can be more to this, quite literally, than meets the eye and how it might not be devoid of all logic.
Finally, I've noticed that "of colour" is used more for women than for men. This, I truly don't know what to make of. Racked my brain for something to explain it but with no success. All I can think of is that with women being perceived (rightly imo) as generally disadvantaged compared to men they are also perceived as being more in need of the term ("of colour") which carries overt respect. But I'm miles from being wedded to this so won't be defending it against reasonable dissent.
Wrote rather more than I intended when I set out on that. Apols. To myself too - my soup has now gone cold.
It is a load of bollox for woke pc idiots. White is a colour as well so we are all coloured or "of colour", WTF are all these losers on making up stupid names or types of people to try and pigeon whole certain groups and then whinging and whining if it does not suit them. Pathetic.
I don't make the rules. Just seeking to delve a little. Cost me my soup, too, so I hope there was at least something of interest in it.
Fruity (and super super bright) Leon found something there, I see, which makes me glow.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
Yes, it's awful but gets worse. Braverman starts her tweet by saying: Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and must not be undermined. She then goes on to do precisely that; her next word is "However...." I'm not sure this is a well-judged intervention; I don't think juries will be seen as fair game in any culture war she wants to provoke.
What's the problem? She's been quite clear: legal experts know that this trial doesn't set a precedent that can be relied upon in future, but your average rioter doesn't, and may take this judgment to mean they are at liberty to simply take out any statue they don't like the look of. Therefore, she is referring it for clarification. As I believe she is entitled to do, especially given the publicity over the case.
Christ, that final family holiday sounds grisly. Isn't the problem with the £17m chalet that it possibly isn't worth £17m particularly in the current climate, and Andy's over a barrel? What self respecting buyer of Swiss chalets wouldn't play hardball in that situation?
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
I don't understand why nobody has had a pop at James II outside the National Gallery. The Royal African Company wasn't called Royal for nothing, and James was a complete c--t anyway. And he was Duke of York which plays nicely with other current affairs.
Not a complete specimen of genitalia. He was pretty sound on naval matters, generally. To the extent that he was delighted when his British sailors thrashed the French. Though characteristically tactless to say it when he was watching the battle while standing on the shore of Normandy with his, by then, allied French commanders.
Yes, it's awful but gets worse. Braverman starts her tweet by saying: Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and must not be undermined. She then goes on to do precisely that; her next word is "However...." I'm not sure this is a well-judged intervention; I don't think juries will be seen as fair game in any culture war she wants to provoke.
If you want to get rid of juries (and the current lot of clowns want to get rid of them for some types of cases) you do it by introducing doubt, slowly, surely and continually. And this is the purpose of that tweet and others over the past few days.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Yes, my assumption was that appealing it was impossible? - but the AG’s tweets implied that it was
You are correct about Churchill. The danger now is that others will get all excited and go for juicier targets - like Winston - and then it will REALLY kick off
Christ, that final family holiday sounds grisly. Isn't the problem with the £17m chalet that it possibly isn't worth £17m particularly in the current climate, and Andy's over a barrel? What self respecting buyer of Swiss chalets wouldn't play hardball in that situation?
How long has it been up for sale for - he's being trying to sell it for years.
Its almost like its worth less than the loans outstanding on it.
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Isn't there some obscure law that already does it? You know, an offence called something weird like "criminal damage" for which one penalty is compensation for the damage? I'm sure I read about something of the sort.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
We rarely agree but on this I completely agree
Indeed with the trek to the South Pole I was astonished when they referred to her colour rather than her fantastic achievement
Perhaps it is more noticeable against the scenery?
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Clarifying the law is irrelevant really as juries can still ignore.
Not even that, what law is being clarified. The only thing you can do in a circumstance like this is attack the guidance the Judge gave the jury and given the fact no reporter in court has even mentioned it, there was clearly nothing obviously dubious in his guidance.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
I heard one of them being interviewed last night and it made me happy that they had been found not guilty.
Had they been convicted, we would not have been able to hear so openly from them and it would therefore have remained far less clear just how silly, self-centred, shallow, stupid, and ignorant of history, precedent and the basic rules of justice in a democratic society these little twats are.
Now we all know and are surely better off for it.
I have the parallel view on keeping statues of reprobates where they are. Let their ignominy be shown for all to see.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
I don't think you are reading that right. A large number of Remainers like myself did not become Rejoiners as it is not practical. Therefore if Rejoin is at 45% I think that is a huge percentage. I would have thought a much lower figure than that as it would not include all Remainers like me. I guess it also depends on time scales. For me the only practical way forward as a Remainer is to make the best of a bad job and look for closer and closer relationships, but I don't see rejoining as an option for a long time, if at all.
PS I do agree with your analysis however that Starmer won't go for rejoin but back a custom union at most.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
That would be double jeopardy.
A lawyer speaks - well said sir!
Legal Twitter is arguing that the CPS could appeal the case on the grounds that the “judge misdirected the jury” - that sounds like it might be bollocks but IANAL 🤷♂️🤷♂️
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
It's just a sop to the statue shaggers. It would achieve putting the waste of space Braverman in the news and enamouring her to the Tory base who love slaver statues so job done.
The Tory base are no fonder of slaver statues than anyone else. What they dislike is angry lefties getting their own way.
42% of Tory voters want to keep statues of those involved in the slave trade on display, 42% to put them in a museum on those figures. An equal split. Just 9% want to destroy them.
57% of Labour voters want to put them in a museum, 19% to destroy them and 19% to keep them up
In almost all cases I think statues should stay where they are with an explanatory plaque if needed.
I do have one set of exceptions. I believe in the early 1900s a lot of confederate civil war statues were erected and although many might have been for genuine reasons in many cases it was for the purpose of intimidating the black population. If the latter I can see how these will still offend explanatory plaque or not and there if they do they should go.
Just like one parliament can't bind its successors, nor should one generation be able to bind its successors with their buildings or statues. A general presumption of let statues remain in place is fine, but not an all statues should stay forever regardless of merit or relevance. For a start we will run out of places to put them in prime locations if each future generation gets the same number as those from the past have taken.
It amuses me to think of the consequences of what you have said about my post. The vision of not being able to move for the bloody things. Consequently I have to agree with you.
Did you have a clue what my last sentence meant? A random word generator would have struggled to do better.
Yes I understand it clearly despite the syntax. Not sure how much I scan read and how much I read properly, but imagine it is mostly scanning, which has the obvious benefit of speed and not worrying too much about correct syntax. It does mean occasionally I get the wrong end of the stick though.
Similarly with my typing on here, a lot of it is just mumbled up thoughts with very little priority given to syntax. I am very grateful to the 6 minute edit windows, but that is sometimes not enough either.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Yes, my assumption was that appealing it was impossible? - but the AG’s tweets implied that it was
You are correct about Churchill. The danger now is that others will get all excited and go for juicier targets - like Winston - and then it will REALLY kick off
If Winston went down the far right would go up to London the next day ready for a fight with the far left. It really would kick off.
Boris would have to have him put him back up straight away as the Tory party would also be mad. It would lead headlines around the world, Trump of course would use it to whip up his supporters too
Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.
(And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....
Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
If you have a report that a disease + condition X = *orders* of magnitude more bad outcomes.... well, it is not surprising that the medics are going "hey, throw that out the window, things are different now" without further evidence.
We must have plenty of real world evidence now, either to the affirmative or to the contrary, given how many 'incidental' admissions we have sustained since omicron arrived. Has anyone run the numbers?
It has significantly increased, but most in hospital with covid are "For" covid rather than incidental admissions, still, and the "For covid" numbers have been climbing.
Note that the orange incidental admissions aren't there as a fraction of the whole but separately plotted to the blue "for" admissions. Wherever the orange is below the blue (everywhere) admissions for covid have been larger than incidental admissions.
It helps to an extent, but only to an extent. Incidental admissions must be quarantined from the non-covid patients (because hospital-acquired infections can be enough to kill a poorly patient recovering from other things), require PPE, and can end up making whatever the incidental patient was admitted for far worse (as a rule of thumb, adding covid to any illness or injury never helps matters).
But it does make it somewhat less of an impact, and reflects a lower infection hospitalisation rate (at least amongst the vaccinated, and it's looking like we're running out of unvaccinated/uninfected people. The USA, on the other hand, may be comprehensively fucked by this)
Surely a non-covid line is meaninglessness? It’s all about are the care homes, ambulances, and hospitals in trouble or not, if it’s weather caused breaks and bangs or strokes, or flu, or cop d or covid doesn’t make much difference it’s total number in beds, on trolleys, out sick, qued up only stats what matter?
Before covid there used to be good bad and ugly NHS winters, as flu was variable, and the weather. To be honest weather been really kind so far this winter?
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Clarifying the law is irrelevant really as juries can still ignore.
Not even that, what law is being clarified. The only thing you can do in a circumstance like this is attack the guidance the Judge gave the jury and given the fact no reporter in court has even mentioned it, there was clearly nothing obviously dubious in his guidance.
The theory is he should have stopped the lawyer who put emotional pressure on the jury. “The world is watching” etc etc
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous [edit] locally for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Nah, if the government were clever they would stay out of the whole debate and worry about their own shit.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
That would be double jeopardy.
A lawyer speaks - well said sir!
He doesn't speak very accurately. It was never called that in England, it's autrefois acquit, and it only applies to a new prosecution on the same facts, not appeals in the one set of proceedings
Christ, that final family holiday sounds grisly. Isn't the problem with the £17m chalet that it possibly isn't worth £17m particularly in the current climate, and Andy's over a barrel? What self respecting buyer of Swiss chalets wouldn't play hardball in that situation?
And where on earth does this leave Fergie? Will she decouple again? I haven't seen that angle covered at all.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
I heard one of them being interviewed last night and it made me happy that they had been found not guilty.
Had they been convicted, we would not have been able to hear so openly from them and it would therefore have remained far less clear just how silly, self-centred, shallow, stupid, and ignorant of history, precedent and the basic rules of justice in a democratic society these little twats are.
Now we all know and are surely better off for it.
I have the parallel view on keeping statues of reprobates where they are. Let their ignominy be shown for all to see.
While this is a superficially attractive approach, it begs the question why do we not put up statues of todays reprobates?
Jimmy Saville statue, anyone?
Obviously not. So why keep up the statues of yesteryears reprobates?
The museum solution is, I recon, the best way to deal with the problem. Let the interested parties fight it out over how to contextualise them.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
With a ten day lag, and using the ONS infections estimates for infections, and the hospital admissions for England multiplied by the ratio of "in hospital primarily for covid/all hospital beds occupied with covid" rate published today [This will give too high a rate of IHR in times when the incidentals rate is climbing and too low a rate when it is falling, but as it was relatively constant for a prolonged period prior to this time and this would cause the IHR to err towards being too high rather than too low at the moment is thus an overconservative adjustment], I get this:
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Nah, if the government were clever they would stay out of the whole debate and worry about their own shit.
Statue-bothering is already a worse criminal offence than rape, in terms of the max sentence.
Yes, it's awful but gets worse. Braverman starts her tweet by saying: Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and must not be undermined. She then goes on to do precisely that; her next word is "However...." I'm not sure this is a well-judged intervention; I don't think juries will be seen as fair game in any culture war she wants to provoke.
If you want to get rid of juries (and the current lot of clowns want to get rid of them for some types of cases) you do it by introducing doubt, slowly, surely and continually. And this is the purpose of that tweet and others over the past few days.
Our Government is composed of clowns, who have (despite their clear and obvious intellectual shortcomings) nevertheless concocted a devilish long term plot to destabilise public trust in juries over the long term, so that in... three? five? ten? twenty? years time, they can get rid of them.
Pull the other one. Even I don't believe they have the ability to plan that far ahead, and you sure as hell wouldn't if you thought about it. It's pure reactionary kneejerk, with a side helping of worrying about this summer's riot season and where it might end up.
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Isn't there some obscure law that already does it? You know, an offence called something weird like "criminal damage" for which one penalty is compensation for the damage? I'm sure I read about something of the sort.
I'd imagine (and it really is imagine; I know nothing about the law) that the perpetrators could still be sued for the destruction in the civil courts, even though they have been found not guilty of criminal damage.
Yes, it's awful but gets worse. Braverman starts her tweet by saying: Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and must not be undermined. She then goes on to do precisely that; her next word is "However...." I'm not sure this is a well-judged intervention; I don't think juries will be seen as fair game in any culture war she wants to provoke.
What's the problem? She's been quite clear: legal experts know that this trial doesn't set a precedent that can be relied upon in future, but your average rioter doesn't, and may take this judgment to mean they are at liberty to simply take out any statue they don't like the look of. Therefore, she is referring it for clarification. As I believe she is entitled to do, especially given the publicity over the case.
Let's be honest, if it was a hypothetical situation of a bunch of racists who took down a statue of Nelson Mandela and were cleared under the same circumstances, we wouldn't be hearing much about the jury's sacrosanct right and why is the Government appealing the decision from those most outraged.
The principle doesn't count, it's whether your side won.
PS I agree with you, the AG has the perfect right to do this. In the above circumstance, I bet these same people would criticise her if she did NOT take action.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Clarifying the law is irrelevant really as juries can still ignore.
Not even that, what law is being clarified. The only thing you can do in a circumstance like this is attack the guidance the Judge gave the jury and given the fact no reporter in court has even mentioned it, there was clearly nothing obviously dubious in his guidance.
The theory is he should have stopped the lawyer who put emotional pressure on the jury. “The world is watching” etc etc
No idea if this is a valid complaint
Surely it's up to the prosecution lawyer to object not the judge.
They really are clutching at straws - in a lot of ways because they seem to forget it's a one off court case, it doesn't matter in the scheme of things outside 1 statue that was already in dispute and being argued over.
Attack a different statue elsewhere and the outcome of the court case may (probably would) be very different.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Yes, my assumption was that appealing it was impossible? - but the AG’s tweets implied that it was
You are correct about Churchill. The danger now is that others will get all excited and go for juicier targets - like Winston - and then it will REALLY kick off
If Winston went down the far right would go up to London the next day ready for a fight with the far left. It really would kick off.
Boris would have to have him put him back up straight away as the Tory party would also be mad
Is it really far left who always been itching to tear down Tory statues? Maybe saying woke is far left politics is a bit confused about it?
If you can imagine tit for tat statue tear down, you have to concede tit for tat statue put ups in first place don’t you?
I have one hell of hangover I feel like I want to be edgy and confrontational this afternoon. Who wants some 😈
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Isn't there some obscure law that already does it? You know, an offence called something weird like "criminal damage" for which one penalty is compensation for the damage? I'm sure I read about something of the sort.
I'd imagine (and it really is imagine; I know nothing about the law) that the perpetrators could still be sued for the destruction in the civil courts, even though they have been found not guilty of criminal damage.
By whom? The thing was given to the city, was it not?
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous [edit] locally for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
Point of order: it was Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter who married Shelley. I've never seen the statue because I avoid North London on a point of principle but I have read the Vindication of the Rights of Women (or at least I've read bits of it, it's rather repetitive).
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
As noted in the article, the only question the Court of Appeal can consider is whether the judge's directions to the jury were correct. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested they aren't. So I am unclear on what a referral would achieve.
I heard one of them being interviewed last night and it made me happy that they had been found not guilty.
Had they been convicted, we would not have been able to hear so openly from them and it would therefore have remained far less clear just how silly, self-centred, shallow, stupid, and ignorant of history, precedent and the basic rules of justice in a democratic society these little twats are.
Now we all know and are surely better off for it.
I have the parallel view on keeping statues of reprobates where they are. Let their ignominy be shown for all to see.
While this is a superficially attractive approach, it begs the question why do we not put up statues of todays reprobates?
Jimmy Saville statue, anyone?
Obviously not. So why keep up the statues of yesteryears reprobates?
The museum solution is, I recon, the best way to deal with the problem. Let the interested parties fight it out over how to contextualise them.
A friend of mine worked at a company where the meeting rooms were jovially named after celebrities, with the celebrity in question appearing in cardboard cut out form in each room. Obviously when the, er, unpleasantness surrounding Jimmy Savile became apparent the Jimmy Savile room had to be hurriedly denamed. The fella with the screwdriver came around fairly quickly to remove the name plaque, but for reasons nobody fully understands, the job of removing the cardboard cut out of Jimmy Savile to a skip out the back was left to one of the directors, leading to an awkward moment in reception as he was on his way out when he and Jimmy passed some directors from another company on the way in.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous [edit] locally for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
It is a peculiar statue, that one. You can imagine it gracing the Playboy Mansion, very easily
Is that somehow the point? A garbled meta-commentary on misogyny and objectification?
Haven't a clue. But apols for the brain fart. Mrs W the feminist was of course PBS's mother in law. It was Frankenstein, not the Rights of Woman, that Mrs S wrote.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
It was even worse in motion. The 'gush' bit only lasted a second, after that it rose ponderously with just drips that didn't cover the ugly runners beneath. The Lib Dems actually had the stones to defend it on the basis that if it came down it would be undermining the town's connection with Shelley, as if it ever had anything to do with him. Interestingly, the artist behind the design was heavily patronised by the late Duke of Devonshire, and there is (was?) a large collection of her gruesome waterworks at Chatsworth.
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Isn't there some obscure law that already does it? You know, an offence called something weird like "criminal damage" for which one penalty is compensation for the damage? I'm sure I read about something of the sort.
I'd imagine (and it really is imagine; I know nothing about the law) that the perpetrators could still be sued for the destruction in the civil courts, even though they have been found not guilty of criminal damage.
Yeah, there's Common Law trespass to goods, and the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. You'd probably get home - no jury, no "lawful excuse" exception, as you say lower standard of proof.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
45% wanting to rejoin is insanely high considering the absolute palaver it would be.
It isn't, it is 3% less than voted Remain even in 2016 and given 2/3 of constituencies voted Leave full rejoin is political suicide under FPTP
Of course it is, both because rejoining is a more dramatic proposition than remaining, and because what was a very significant gap between the proportion thinking Brexit is a bad idea and those wanting to rejoin has narrowed dramatically. That the rejoin percentage isn't far below the original remain percentage represents a significant shift in opinion
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
Point of order: it was Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter who married Shelley. I've never seen the statue because I avoid North London on a point of principle but I have read the Vindication of the Rights of Women (or at least I've read bits of it, it's rather repetitive).
Quite right. Had just come to the same realization. Frankenstein had much more of an impact on me, which is probably why I had my cerebral eructation. Sorry.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
With a ten day lag, and using the ONS infections estimates for infections, and the hospital admissions for England multiplied by the ratio of "in hospital primarily for covid/all hospital beds occupied with covid" rate published today [This will give too high a rate of IHR in times when the incidentals rate is climbing and too low a rate when it is falling, but as it was relatively constant for a prolonged period prior to this time and this would cause the IHR to err towards being too high rather than too low at the moment is thus an overconservative adjustment], I get this:
0.2% – that's what Max said upthread. I'm buried in work but popped back in to see whether Chris' claim that the IHR rate for Omicron was the same that for Delta had been debunked yet?
I am shocked people whose living is derived from social media don't use the automatic scrubbing tools to delete their tweets every x weeks / months....I would have thought their handlers would insist on it.
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Isn't there some obscure law that already does it? You know, an offence called something weird like "criminal damage" for which one penalty is compensation for the damage? I'm sure I read about something of the sort.
I'd imagine (and it really is imagine; I know nothing about the law) that the perpetrators could still be sued for the destruction in the civil courts, even though they have been found not guilty of criminal damage.
By whom? The thing was given to the city, was it not?
Presumably there was still a not inconsiderable cost to fishing the sodding thing out of the harbour.
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Yes, my assumption was that appealing it was impossible? - but the AG’s tweets implied that it was
You are correct about Churchill. The danger now is that others will get all excited and go for juicier targets - like Winston - and then it will REALLY kick off
I don't think this case sets any firm precedent let alone one that would protect somebody toppling Winnie. Colston in Bristol was a very particular situation. The way I look at it is that Not Guilty was the technical verdict but Justifiable Homocide was in effect found. That's a rare occurrence. It needs extremely strong mitigating circumstances. They were judged to be so here.
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
With a ten day lag, and using the ONS infections estimates for infections, and the hospital admissions for England multiplied by the ratio of "in hospital primarily for covid/all hospital beds occupied with covid" rate published today [This will give too high a rate of IHR in times when the incidentals rate is climbing and too low a rate when it is falling, but as it was relatively constant for a prolonged period prior to this time and this would cause the IHR to err towards being too high rather than too low at the moment is thus an overconservative adjustment], I get this:
Another point in this general area is the remarkable flatness of the mechanical ventilator COVID numbers...
From posts this morning, it's clear that the axiomatic obsession with 'cases' continues largely unabated in some circles.
Ha.
While the boosters have further disconnected COVID cases from hospitalisation and deaths (and Omicron itself seems to have had some effect), it is clear that a numbers of people are getting sick and dying.
It is beginning to look as if we *may* be able to get through this wave without Italy style medical collapse, but it won't be jolly in the hospitals for a while.
3.5m infections in England (mostly Omicron) has resulted in somewhere around 8-9k in hospital for COVID in England and a further 6-8k with COVID. The infection hospitalisation rate must be miniscule. We're talking maybe 0.2% of infected people requiring an overnight stay in hospital for Omicron.
The biggest threat to hospitals is isolation rules. Making people who are perfectly fine stay home for at least 7 days is why the NHS is under pressure right now.
That's interesting, because when I did my back-of-a-fag-packet, Not A Mathematician, exercise the the other day, I ended up with ~0.2% IHR too. I thought it too low to be true, but maybe you are right. I would certainly trust your numbers over my own amateurish efforts.
Presumably not allowing for any time-lag between positive test and hospitalisation?
Allowing for a 10-day time-lag it's more like 1.9%, as a percentage of positive tests. Almost exactly what it was in bad old days of Delta
With a ten day lag, and using the ONS infections estimates for infections, and the hospital admissions for England multiplied by the ratio of "in hospital primarily for covid/all hospital beds occupied with covid" rate published today [This will give too high a rate of IHR in times when the incidentals rate is climbing and too low a rate when it is falling, but as it was relatively constant for a prolonged period prior to this time and this would cause the IHR to err towards being too high rather than too low at the moment is thus an overconservative adjustment], I get this:
Thanks for doing the legwork, I'm actually unusually busy for a Friday, I think an IHR of 0.2% for Omicron in a largely immune population seems about right. It's also important to note that we've still got a handful of Delta cases which will have that 0.6-0.8% observed IHR dragging the current rate up.
If the government were clever they would pass a law that allows the government to sue statue attackers in the civil courts for the cost of putting it right.
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Isn't there some obscure law that already does it? You know, an offence called something weird like "criminal damage" for which one penalty is compensation for the damage? I'm sure I read about something of the sort.
I'd imagine (and it really is imagine; I know nothing about the law) that the perpetrators could still be sued for the destruction in the civil courts, even though they have been found not guilty of criminal damage.
By whom? The thing was given to the city, was it not?
Presumably there was still a not inconsiderable cost to fishing the sodding thing out of the harbour.
But it's only the legal owner who can sue.
Also, doesn't matter if someone else spends money on it if they don't own it. I could spend a fortune on the garden wall and if it turns out to belong to my neighbour then hard cheese.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Yes, my assumption was that appealing it was impossible? - but the AG’s tweets implied that it was
You are correct about Churchill. The danger now is that others will get all excited and go for juicier targets - like Winston - and then it will REALLY kick off
I don't think this case sets any firm precedent let alone one that would protect somebody toppling Winnie. Colston in Bristol was a very particular situation. The way I look at it is that Not Guilty was the technical verdict but Justifiable Homocide was in effect found. That's a rare occurrence. It needs extremely strong mitigating circumstances. They were judged to be so here.
"Justifiable Homocide" sounds like a legal concept you would find in Iran.
Comments
He admitted he toiled to work out the justification for “of colour” and I was agreeing with him that it is difficult, but it can sort-of be done
This, however: "If you don't want art to be altered by the public, don't put it in a public space", is bolleaux. The art was put there by the council which was voted in by the public. That is how art should be shown or not shown in public.
And also there's the retired colonel slippery slope argument watch out Winston in Whitehall.
Private Eye Magazine
@PrivateEyeNews
·
1h
Radioactive sign We’re throwing money at French firm EDF to build our nuclear reactors. But the only operational model of their design suffered damaged fuel rods and a radioactive leak last year, causing France itself to halt any more construction. Full story in the new Eye, in shops now. Radioactive sign
We need those RR mini-reactors by the looks of things.
Of course all these are just words and have no inherent meaning, as all of you sister-fuckers know.
Daily infections are measuring a change in infection whereas numbers in hospital on any day is measuring a total figure. Wouldn't hospitalisations vs prevalence of Covid on any day be a more correct metric ?
It's mixing up differentials and integrals I think..
And after a shocked, silent, awkward few moments my friend's wife prodded lovingly her child and said: "no, *you're* a monkey".
And all was well.
Keeping quiet would be a far better plan but then this Government always need publicity about something stupid to hide their latest disaster.
So my next question is what disaster occurred this morning or is now odds on to occur in the next few hours.
Max plucked some figure out of the air and came out with an answer an order of magnitude smaller. God knows where he got it from - he didn't explain. It's not open to argument because we don't know where on earth it came from. But if you find his figure more comforting, of course go ahead and believe there's nothing to worry about. That's how things work here now.
Did you have a clue what my last sentence meant? A random word generator would have struggled to do better.
Fruity (and super super bright) Leon found something there, I see, which makes me glow.
As for Winston, I don't really care whether he ends up in the Thames or not.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59895505
What would you do.
Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and must not be undermined.
She then goes on to do precisely that; her next word is "However...."
I'm not sure this is a well-judged intervention; I don't think juries will be seen as fair game in any culture war she wants to provoke.
Who would you have decide.
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
Note that the orange incidental admissions aren't there as a fraction of the whole but separately plotted to the blue "for" admissions. Wherever the orange is below the blue (everywhere) admissions for covid have been larger than incidental admissions.
It helps to an extent, but only to an extent. Incidental admissions must be quarantined from the non-covid patients (because hospital-acquired infections can be enough to kill a poorly patient recovering from other things), require PPE, and can end up making whatever the incidental patient was admitted for far worse (as a rule of thumb, adding covid to any illness or injury never helps matters).
But it does make it somewhat less of an impact, and reflects a lower infection hospitalisation rate (at least amongst the vaccinated, and it's looking like we're running out of unvaccinated/uninfected people. The USA, on the other hand, may be comprehensively fucked by this)
I would hope you agree that we should be basing policy off the latter and ignoring the former, but based on your posting history, I have some doubts.
Ed-we can cut all this crap for a start
Presumably it looks about as smart as BoZo himself
It is difficult to think of an AG who has more enthusiastically abused their office.
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1479440530526416899
Much more likely to achieve the deterrent aim that way, and 99% more likelihood of success legally.
Isn't the problem with the £17m chalet that it possibly isn't worth £17m particularly in the current climate, and Andy's over a barrel? What self respecting buyer of Swiss chalets wouldn't play hardball in that situation?
You are correct about Churchill. The danger now is that others will get all excited and go for juicier targets - like Winston - and then it will REALLY kick off
Its almost like its worth less than the loans outstanding on it.
PS I do agree with your analysis however that Starmer won't go for rejoin but back a custom union at most.
Similarly with my typing on here, a lot of it is just mumbled up thoughts with very little priority given to syntax. I am very grateful to the 6 minute edit windows, but that is sometimes not enough either.
Boris would have to have him put him back up straight away as the Tory party would also be mad. It would lead headlines around the world, Trump of course would use it to whip up his supporters too
Before covid there used to be good bad and ugly NHS winters, as flu was variable, and the weather. To be honest weather been really kind so far this winter?
No idea if this is a valid complaint
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54886813
Jimmy Saville statue, anyone?
Obviously not. So why keep up the statues of yesteryears reprobates?
The museum solution is, I recon, the best way to deal with the problem. Let the interested parties fight it out over how to contextualise them.
Pull the other one. Even I don't believe they have the ability to plan that far ahead, and you sure as hell wouldn't if you thought about it. It's pure reactionary kneejerk, with a side helping of worrying about this summer's riot season and where it might end up.
The principle doesn't count, it's whether your side won.
PS I agree with you, the AG has the perfect right to do this. In the above circumstance, I bet these same people would criticise her if she did NOT take action.
They really are clutching at straws - in a lot of ways because they seem to forget it's a one off court case, it doesn't matter in the scheme of things outside 1 statue that was already in dispute and being argued over.
Attack a different statue elsewhere and the outcome of the court case may (probably would) be very different.
If you can imagine tit for tat statue tear down, you have to concede tit for tat statue put ups in first place don’t you?
I have one hell of hangover I feel like I want to be edgy and confrontational this afternoon. Who wants some 😈
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Is that somehow the point? A garbled meta-commentary on misogyny and objectification?
Edit: though NYT has a somewhat similar view:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/arts/design/mary-wollstonecraft-statue-london.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10378903/Elle-Darby-boyfriend-Connor-Swift-DROPPED-agency-racist-tweets.html
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-france-could-reach-peak-of-new-coronavirus-wave-in-10-day-health-officials-warn-12510781?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
Also, doesn't matter if someone else spends money on it if they don't own it. I could spend a fortune on the garden wall and if it turns out to belong to my neighbour then hard cheese.
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered