I mention it to repeat my rant about BBC weekend and overnight interns blindly following US news channels and filling the front page with American domestic stories. Apologies to any PBers who have actually heard of him.
I think he was a theme once in an episode of a US comedy show (Friends?). One of the characters (Chandler?) being mistaken for him.
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
Manufacturers have warned that Brexit will add to soaring costs facing British industry, amid concerns that customs delays and red tape will rank among the biggest challenges for firms this year.
Make UK, the industry body representing 20,000 manufacturing firms of all sizes from across the country, said that while optimism among its members had grown, it was being undermined by the after-effects of the UK’s departure from the EU.
One year on from the end of the transition period, two-thirds of industrial company leaders in its survey of 228 firms said Brexit had moderately or significantly hampered their business. More than half of firms warned they were likely to suffer further damage this year from customs delays due to import checks and changes to product labelling.
According to the 2022 MakeUK/PwC senior executive survey, Brexit disruption remains among the biggest concerns facing industry bosses for the year ahead as Britain’s departure from the EU complicates the fallout from Covid-19 and the rising costs facing companies.
Delays at customs, the additional costs from meeting separate regulatory regimes in the UK and the EU, and reduced access to migrant workers were among top concerns raised in the survey.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
Sounds very much like the judge will side with novax.
Correct. He has won the case, the visa is reinstated and he will be released immediately.
Notwithstanding that, the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, can now personally intervene and decide to cancel his visa anyway on entirely new grounds. Which the government flagged in court may be something that happens.
If that happens, it could end up back in court because Djokovic would face being banned from Australia for three years if the minister decides to cancel the visa.
Banning the world's top player for three years would be in danger of undermining Australian tennis and its grand slam tournament.
Sounds very much like the judge will side with novax.
Correct. He has won the case, the visa is reinstated and he will be released immediately.
Notwithstanding that, the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, can now personally intervene and decide to cancel his visa anyway on entirely new grounds. Which the government flagged in court may be something that happens.
If that happens, it could end up back in court because Djokovic would face being banned from Australia for three years if the minister decides to cancel the visa.
Banning the world's top player for three years would be in danger of undermining Australian tennis and its grand slam tournament.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
If countries have entry criteria that unvaccinated individuals can comply with (and remember in very few countries is vaccination actually a legal reqt for their own population) then very few are going to change their entry requirements to exclude one individual.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
Has the calibre of our elected representatives ever been lower?
I mention it to repeat my rant about BBC weekend and overnight interns blindly following US news channels and filling the front page with American domestic stories. Apologies to any PBers who have actually heard of him.
Maybe I’m the one PBer who has heard of him, a veteran comedy great. Very sad news, only 65 and a sudden death, he was on stage the night before.
Manufacturers have warned that Brexit will add to soaring costs facing British industry, amid concerns that customs delays and red tape will rank among the biggest challenges for firms this year.
Make UK, the industry body representing 20,000 manufacturing firms of all sizes from across the country, said that while optimism among its members had grown, it was being undermined by the after-effects of the UK’s departure from the EU.
One year on from the end of the transition period, two-thirds of industrial company leaders in its survey of 228 firms said Brexit had moderately or significantly hampered their business. More than half of firms warned they were likely to suffer further damage this year from customs delays due to import checks and changes to product labelling.
According to the 2022 MakeUK/PwC senior executive survey, Brexit disruption remains among the biggest concerns facing industry bosses for the year ahead as Britain’s departure from the EU complicates the fallout from Covid-19 and the rising costs facing companies.
Delays at customs, the additional costs from meeting separate regulatory regimes in the UK and the EU, and reduced access to migrant workers were among top concerns raised in the survey.
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
amusing to see the left in a dilemma - which is worse ? Privileged super rich tennis star v evil right-wing Conservative government? Whoyagonnapick?!
Mrs C, 'we'? I thought, apologies if wrong, you were seeing yourself as Irish now.
Dual citizenship Mr Dancer, but yes, Brexit has made me embrace my Irish roots. I will probably renew my British passport when it expires in a few year's time. I will see how Brexit's toxicity plays out - will it send the Leavers even madder or will it be seen as a colossal mistake?
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
The reasons why courts may expedite judicial proceedings is a separate issue. Clearly it was done as much for the Aus Open as Djokovic.
As I understand it Tennis Australia asked the Aus Govt to pre-empt all this by checking Visas in advance of travel. The Federal Govt declined and said it was an issue for Victorian authorities on entry. The suspicion is that it was a manufactured crisis done for political reasons. Which now has great potential to backfire on them if they can’t rely on the courts to back them up.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
Has the calibre of our elected representatives ever been lower?
Is a question which has never been repeated decade after decade - you're sounding like a grumpy old feminist!
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
Its interesting that Labour, through Rachel Reeves, is actually putting forward a policy that may garner public support with the windfall levy and subsidy for business/domestic heating costs. I personally don't think her policy is a good one but it is a significant step towards being a real opposition putting forward an alternative. It rather highlights what has been missing for at least the last year. The government are looking slightly caught on the hop by having to deal with an opposition. They are not used to it.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
There’s photos of him at public events, taken the day after he says he tested positive in December. The Australian authorities are of the mindset that they are being lied to.
They’ll go through the motions with his well-paid lawyers, then deport him anyway.
The options he had, were to either be vaccinated or take a fortnight’s quarantine, as hundreds of thousands of others have done in Australia during the pandemic.
It’s going to be pretty much impossible to live life as an unvaccinated touring sportsman, each country they visit will have their own rules about vaccines, testing and quarantine.
I wonder how much attention the F1 circus is paying to all these goings-on with the tennis players? They are supposed to be in Melbourne in April, after two years off, only on the condition that they won’t have to quarantine - presumably the same standards that are being applied to the tennis tournament.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
I wonder if they will next demand a test to verify that he has covid antibodies?
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
Has the calibre of our elected representatives ever been lower?
I doubt it. Parliament isn't fairing particularly well in the social media era. You need to be continuously on top of social media and failure to perform well in this respect is effectively a a barrier to entry. Plus the salary is low. So politics will effectively become a career for second rate social media performers.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
I quite like TikTok, and it is fun light entertainment, with lots of music, film and dance. Nothing remotely like news on my feed though.
Its interesting that Labour, through Rachel Reeves, is actually putting forward a policy that may garner public support with the windfall levy and subsidy for business/domestic heating costs. I personally don't think her policy is a good one but it is a significant step towards being a real opposition putting forward an alternative. It rather highlights what has been missing for at least the last year. The government are looking slightly caught on the hop by having to deal with an opposition. They are not used to it.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
Has the calibre of our elected representatives ever been lower?
Is a question which has never been repeated decade after decade - you're sounding like a grumpy old feminist!
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
Huge numbers of footballers, to take one example.
Italy has already said no unvaccinated foreign sportsmen are allowed in the country to compete. Several other European countries will probably take a similar approach in the coming months, which makes the European Cup and the Six Nations rather difficult for those without jabs.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
I wonder if they will next demand a test to verify that he has covid antibodies?
Possibly, there seem to be pictures of him wandering about unmasked when he supposedly had Covid. And the timing is remarkably convenient, to put it no higher.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
There’s photos of him at public events, taken the day after he says he tested positive in December. The Australian authorities are of the mindset that they are being lied to.
They’ll go through the motions with his well-paid lawyers, then deport him anyway.
The options he had, were to either be vaccinated or take a fortnight’s quarantine, as hundreds of thousands of others have done in Australia during the pandemic.
It’s going to be pretty much impossible to live life as an unvaccinated touring sportsman, each country they visit will have their own rules about vaccines, testing and quarantine.
I wonder how much attention the F1 circus is paying to all these goings-on with the tennis players? They are supposed to be in Melbourne in April, after two years off, only on the condition that they won’t have to quarantine - presumably the same standards that are being applied to the tennis tournament.
Given the increasing evidence that vaccination does not do much to prevent infection or transmission, and Govts likely reluctance anyway to contually subsidise the cost of mass vaccination in the lng term, I suspect life for the unvaccinated to gradually become easier, not more difficult. The real motivation for Govts to encourage/mandate vaccination is to prevent pressure on their health systems - which isn’t really an issue for a few isolated cases of healthy young sports stars.
Its interesting that Labour, through Rachel Reeves, is actually putting forward a policy that may garner public support with the windfall levy and subsidy for business/domestic heating costs. I personally don't think her policy is a good one but it is a significant step towards being a real opposition putting forward an alternative. It rather highlights what has been missing for at least the last year. The government are looking slightly caught on the hop by having to deal with an opposition. They are not used to it.
Its interesting that Labour, through Rachel Reeves, is actually putting forward a policy that may garner public support with the windfall levy and subsidy for business/domestic heating costs. I personally don't think her policy is a good one but it is a significant step towards being a real opposition putting forward an alternative. It rather highlights what has been missing for at least the last year. The government are looking slightly caught on the hop by having to deal with an opposition. They are not used to it.
Even Norman Lamont is supporting it.
Not quite. He is supporting their call to boost the warm homes discount. That makes sense because it means that far more of your spend is directed at the lower income households, as opposed to a VAT cut which favours the wealthier households. I am sure that the government will move in that direction but whether that is enough to take the heat (sorry) out of this politically remains to be seen.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
A quick look at the Australian government website seems to show no exemption for the recently-recovered.
I am wondering if he is actually not allowed to enter Australia, but the judge has allowed him in as he was given a reasonable belief by Tennis Australia (is it a Government agency?) that he was, and procedural irregularities.
In any case, the way Corona is going through NSW, there's no reason to continue with the restrictions.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
There’s photos of him at public events, taken the day after he says he tested positive in December. The Australian authorities are of the mindset that they are being lied to.
They’ll go through the motions with his well-paid lawyers, then deport him anyway.
The options he had, were to either be vaccinated or take a fortnight’s quarantine, as hundreds of thousands of others have done in Australia during the pandemic.
It’s going to be pretty much impossible to live life as an unvaccinated touring sportsman, each country they visit will have their own rules about vaccines, testing and quarantine.
I wonder how much attention the F1 circus is paying to all these goings-on with the tennis players? They are supposed to be in Melbourne in April, after two years off, only on the condition that they won’t have to quarantine - presumably the same standards that are being applied to the tennis tournament.
Given the increasing evidence that vaccination does not do much to prevent infection or transmission, and Govts likely reluctance anyway to contually subsidise the cost of mass vaccination in the lng term, I suspect life for the unvaccinated to gradually become easier, not more difficult. The real motivation for Govts to encourage/mandate vaccination is to prevent pressure on their health systems - which isn’t really an issue for a few isolated cases of healthy young sports stars.
It isn't just about that, though. It's about making life miserable for the unvaxxed so they get jabbed. Which is cheaper than finding them a hospital bed if they get seriously ill.
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
On the contrary, if our cricket team had been banned from Oz it would have enhanced the credibility of test cricket quite considerably.
Login for first time in a while. Nonchalantly scroll about a bit around last night’s thread. See kjh has spent the whole weekend stewing about a humourous video I gave about 6 seconds thought to before posting on Friday and wants to CANCEL ME for it. Ooh Matron.
Hopefully the site administrators keep user IPs under lock and key or I might need a restraining order against this obsessive weirdo.
Anyway hope all else have a good week. Yesterday’s weather was a joy, the first of the bluebells have begun to sprout in these parts. Spring and the end of the pandemic is around the corner.
Mornin' all. I'm surprised, and TBH, rather saddened, at Djokovic's 'win'. Inclined to agree with Mr Lilburne, above, "he is actually not allowed to enter Australia, but the judge has allowed him in as he was given a reasonable belief by Tennis Australia that he was, and procedural irregularities.'
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
There’s photos of him at public events, taken the day after he says he tested positive in December. The Australian authorities are of the mindset that they are being lied to.
They’ll go through the motions with his well-paid lawyers, then deport him anyway.
The options he had, were to either be vaccinated or take a fortnight’s quarantine, as hundreds of thousands of others have done in Australia during the pandemic.
It’s going to be pretty much impossible to live life as an unvaccinated touring sportsman, each country they visit will have their own rules about vaccines, testing and quarantine.
I wonder how much attention the F1 circus is paying to all these goings-on with the tennis players? They are supposed to be in Melbourne in April, after two years off, only on the condition that they won’t have to quarantine - presumably the same standards that are being applied to the tennis tournament.
Given the increasing evidence that vaccination does not do much to prevent infection or transmission, and Govts likely reluctance anyway to contually subsidise the cost of mass vaccination in the lng term, I suspect life for the unvaccinated to gradually become easier, not more difficult. The real motivation for Govts to encourage/mandate vaccination is to prevent pressure on their health systems - which isn’t really an issue for a few isolated cases of healthy young sports stars.
It isn't just about that, though. It's about making life miserable for the unvaxxed so they get jabbed. Which is cheaper than finding them a hospital bed if they get seriously ill.
Login for first time in a while. Nonchalantly scroll about a bit around last night’s thread. See kjh has spent the whole weekend stewing about a humourous video I gave about 6 seconds thought to before posting on Friday and wants to CANCEL ME for it. Ooh Matron.
Hopefully the site administrators keep user IPs under lock and key or I might need a restraining order against this obsessive weirdo.
Anyway hope all else have a good week. Yesterday’s weather was a joy, the first of the bluebells have begun to sprout in these parts. Spring and the end of the pandemic is around the corner.
Yes, a very promising day, weather-wise. This week apart from today and tomorrow look quite promising, too. Got a couple of trips out lined up, too, meeting friends/colleagues on social activities.
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
Huge numbers of footballers, to take one example.
Italy has already said no unvaccinated foreign sportsmen are allowed in the country to compete. Several other European countries will probably take a similar approach in the coming months, which makes the European Cup and the Six Nations rather difficult for those without jabs.
Well we’ll see how well that holds up once Champions League gets started. As we know, throughout Covid there have been different rules for elite sportspeople.
France is moving towards making their “vaxports” dependent on receiving a booster. Will it then move towards “booster if a booster” or will the move pretty quickly be in the other direction…?
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I hate to break it to you, but the next generation of voters are on it constantly. They never watch tv or read conventional news sites, nor use the older social media sites like FB.
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
Huge numbers of footballers, to take one example.
Italy has already said no unvaccinated foreign sportsmen are allowed in the country to compete. Several other European countries will probably take a similar approach in the coming months, which makes the European Cup and the Six Nations rather difficult for those without jabs.
Well we’ll see how well that holds up once Champions League gets started. As we know, throughout Covid there have been different rules for elite sportspeople.
France is moving towards making their “vaxports” dependent on receiving a booster. Will it then move towards “booster if a booster” or will the move pretty quickly be in the other direction…?
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Mrs C, glad you're renewing your British passport.
Mr. Sandpit, wouldn't be surprised if Australia, and other places, ended up cancelled.
Incidentally, not sure if it was you or someone elsewhere who suggested it, but I do wonder if Vietnam is now permanently off the agenda.
Vietnam was supposed to be a street circuit in Hanoi, but they haven’t built it yet. Maybe it will re-appear next year, but it isn’t on this year’s calendar.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
I quite like TikTok, and it is fun light entertainment, with lots of music, film and dance. Nothing remotely like news on my feed though.
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
Very much so. Same when a jury perversely finds defendants not guilty. These are the hallmaks of a free society.
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
Huge numbers of footballers, to take one example.
Italy has already said no unvaccinated foreign sportsmen are allowed in the country to compete. Several other European countries will probably take a similar approach in the coming months, which makes the European Cup and the Six Nations rather difficult for those without jabs.
Well we’ll see how well that holds up once Champions League gets started. As we know, throughout Covid there have been different rules for elite sportspeople.
France is moving towards making their “vaxports” dependent on receiving a booster. Will it then move towards “booster if a booster” or will the move pretty quickly be in the other direction…?
Austria currently has a 9 months since last prior vaccination rule
You’re the Prime Minister of my great country and as such, I fervently want you NOT to be a shambles. But all the current evidence suggests that by the dictionary definition of that word — “In a state of total disorder” — you’re officially a shambles.
You’re a character, and God knows, we need more of those in a public life so currently neutered by the dreary, joy-sucking woke brigade. But running the country, in fact any country, requires you to not just BE a character but to HAVE character.
And this is where you’re failing so miserably.
Let’s be frank: You’ve destroyed much of that trust in just two disastrous years, and many of those people who broke the habit of a lifetime to vote Tory because they admired your “Let’s get Brexit done!” chutzpah are now so disillusioned, they’re telling pollsters they’ll never support you again.
And sorry Boris, but you’ve only got yourself to blame. Trust in you has been burned, not earned.
What’s wrecking your premiership is your aversion to honesty and accountability. And by your own personal refusal to play by the rules.
You’ve waltzed through life telling brazen whoppers to escape punishment whenever the manure’s hit the fan either professionally or personally, but you can’t do it now that you’re Prime Minister. And every time you try, you further harm your own reputation and that of your government, party, and country.
Stop being a shambles, Boris, and start getting more things done, or admit that being Prime Minister is simply too much for you and let someone else do it — before the party takes that decision for you.
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
Huge numbers of footballers, to take one example.
Italy has already said no unvaccinated foreign sportsmen are allowed in the country to compete. Several other European countries will probably take a similar approach in the coming months, which makes the European Cup and the Six Nations rather difficult for those without jabs.
Well we’ll see how well that holds up once Champions League gets started. As we know, throughout Covid there have been different rules for elite sportspeople.
France is moving towards making their “vaxports” dependent on receiving a booster. Will it then move towards “booster if a booster” or will the move pretty quickly be in the other direction…?
You’re the Prime Minister of my great country and as such, I fervently want you NOT to be a shambles. But all the current evidence suggests that by the dictionary definition of that word — “In a state of total disorder” — you’re officially a shambles.
You’re a character, and God knows, we need more of those in a public life so currently neutered by the dreary, joy-sucking woke brigade. But running the country, in fact any country, requires you to not just BE a character but to HAVE character.
And this is where you’re failing so miserably.
Let’s be frank: You’ve destroyed much of that trust in just two disastrous years, and many of those people who broke the habit of a lifetime to vote Tory because they admired your “Let’s get Brexit done!” chutzpah are now so disillusioned, they’re telling pollsters they’ll never support you again.
And sorry Boris, but you’ve only got yourself to blame. Trust in you has been burned, not earned.
What’s wrecking your premiership is your aversion to honesty and accountability. And by your own personal refusal to play by the rules.
You’ve waltzed through life telling brazen whoppers to escape punishment whenever the manure’s hit the fan either professionally or personally, but you can’t do it now that you’re Prime Minister. And every time you try, you further harm your own reputation and that of your government, party, and country.
Stop being a shambles, Boris, and start getting more things done, or admit that being Prime Minister is simply too much for you and let someone else do it — before the party takes that decision for you.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Australian government looking like a bunch of total arseholes. Not for the first time.
They aren't, Australian swing voters are with Morrison not the judge or Tennis Australia on this. Morrison has his eye on swing voters in an election year, the longer this stays in the headlines the better for him. Losing a few anti vaxxers who back Djokovic to One Nation on the primary vote is not much of a problem given the swing voters he could win back from Labor on the 2PP
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
Huge numbers of footballers, to take one example.
Italy has already said no unvaccinated foreign sportsmen are allowed in the country to compete. Several other European countries will probably take a similar approach in the coming months, which makes the European Cup and the Six Nations rather difficult for those without jabs.
Well we’ll see how well that holds up once Champions League gets started. As we know, throughout Covid there have been different rules for elite sportspeople.
France is moving towards making their “vaxports” dependent on receiving a booster. Will it then move towards “booster if a booster” or will the move pretty quickly be in the other direction…?
We certainly were not free of covid by august, and no it wasn't delta omicron coming along wot did it.
Nonetheless, at some point he will be correct. The notion that we will require mass vaccination in perpetuity is unrealistic.
The annual flu vaccine model for older and at risk individuals is much more likely. Not least because governments will be hesitant to hand Pfizer several billion every year.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
I quite like TikTok, and it is fun light entertainment, with lots of music, film and dance. Nothing remotely like news on my feed though.
BMA not got a feed? Brain op in 15 seconds.
Not a member of the BMA, that spineless bunch of government lackeys. A proper union for me!
The risk for Djokovic is surely that even if he does stay to play in the Australian Open he is likely to find it even harder to play anywhere else - because every other country is going to be properly prepared and get their ducks in a row to refuse him entry properly.
There are a lot of sportspeople who haven't been vaccinated. Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter. Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
Huge numbers of footballers, to take one example.
Italy has already said no unvaccinated foreign sportsmen are allowed in the country to compete. Several other European countries will probably take a similar approach in the coming months, which makes the European Cup and the Six Nations rather difficult for those without jabs.
Well we’ll see how well that holds up once Champions League gets started. As we know, throughout Covid there have been different rules for elite sportspeople.
France is moving towards making their “vaxports” dependent on receiving a booster. Will it then move towards “booster if a booster” or will the move pretty quickly be in the other direction…?
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Like all these discussions I tend to thing these sorts of claims are a bit exaggerated. Often said by people who also complain about the power of the BBC, right wing press barons etc etc
You’re the Prime Minister of my great country and as such, I fervently want you NOT to be a shambles. But all the current evidence suggests that by the dictionary definition of that word — “In a state of total disorder” — you’re officially a shambles.
You’re a character, and God knows, we need more of those in a public life so currently neutered by the dreary, joy-sucking woke brigade. But running the country, in fact any country, requires you to not just BE a character but to HAVE character.
And this is where you’re failing so miserably.
Let’s be frank: You’ve destroyed much of that trust in just two disastrous years, and many of those people who broke the habit of a lifetime to vote Tory because they admired your “Let’s get Brexit done!” chutzpah are now so disillusioned, they’re telling pollsters they’ll never support you again.
And sorry Boris, but you’ve only got yourself to blame. Trust in you has been burned, not earned.
What’s wrecking your premiership is your aversion to honesty and accountability. And by your own personal refusal to play by the rules.
You’ve waltzed through life telling brazen whoppers to escape punishment whenever the manure’s hit the fan either professionally or personally, but you can’t do it now that you’re Prime Minister. And every time you try, you further harm your own reputation and that of your government, party, and country.
Stop being a shambles, Boris, and start getting more things done, or admit that being Prime Minister is simply too much for you and let someone else do it — before the party takes that decision for you.
Given the comments about Australia/Djokovic, I thought it might be useful to give you an update ahead of the federal election, which will likely be called for May, from a local perspective.
The current polling gives Labor a healthy 2PP lead of 55/45 over the coalition. More crucially opinions of Morrison have soured over the previous year, and the Labor Leader Albanese seems to provoke little reaction from the public, which is in contrast to the negative perceptions a lot of people had about the previous opposition leader. Labor are happy to keep the focus on Morrison's perceived problems with honesty and competency.
The big unknown is what will happen to the 'other' vote, and where will it flow on 2nd preferences. In 2019 what sunk Labor was a strong vote for smaller parties like One Nation and more significantly United Australia (a party founded by a Trump like figure named Clive Palmer). These votes flowed very strongly to the coalition on preferences, helping to sink Labor's chances in Queensland above all. In 2016 the preferences flowed much more evenly, and my guess is this is likely to be the case again.
Also in 2019 the coalition took 11 seats in Western Australia compared to Labors 5. Morrison and the coalition are deeply unpopular in WA (in the 2021 state election Labor took 53 seats compared to 2 for the Liberals and 4 for the nationals), so they can expect to lose seats there.
From a betting perspective, currently the coalition are 2.25 to 1.65 to Labor. Unless something dramatic happens soon Albanese looks on course to take Labor back to power after nearly a decade of coalition rule.
You forget Morrison still leads Albanese as preferred PM as he led Shorten as preferred PM in 2019 despite Labor leading polls on the 2PP then as they still do now
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
That is a fallacious argument. We are not criticising the system which allows both the original decision and the court case to overturn it. We are criticising the ineptitude of a Government that can give someone documented permission to travel to their country and then can cancel that permission for what appear to be reasons of political expediency.
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
That is a fallacious argument. We are not criticising the system which allows both the original decision and the court case to overturn it. We are criticising the ineptitude of a Government that can give someone documented permission to travel to their country and then can cancel that permission for what appear to be reasons of political expediency.
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
The Victorian state government is Labor controlled and they were the ones who originally gave him permission
R4 reporting rumours in Oz that Novax has just been arrested
I have never protested anything in my life, but I'd be sorely tempted to get myself chucked out of the crowd for making a racket when he's trying to serve and stuff if I was at the Oz open
It seems the Oz Gvt lost the case not on the substance but as a consequence of how Novax was treated - as often, such cases are lost on the way something was done rather than the fact of its doing.
The Australian system is a real mess. A colleague of mine from Perth in Western Australia (fully vaxxed) working offshore Norway on a rotation with all the correct visas for both countries left Oslo on 20th December to travel home. He was let into Sydney with no issue but then was refused permission to travel home to Perth in Western Australia until 14 days after he had arrived back in Australia. The weird thing is that he wasn't in quarantine. This was not a requirement from the Federal border police or Government, it was a Western Australia rule that forbid him entering the state until 14 days after he had arrived back but with no other controls. And this after 2 years of traveling to and from Norway under the same circumstances but without this last delay.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
No, I think what ever you think of Djokovic and vaccines the Aus Govt have screwed up big time. They’ve got themselves in a position where chucking him out may be the popular thing to do, but where doing so will create a bigproblem for them legally. At the end of the day, if he has complied with all legal requirements then (contrary to popular perception) he is not being let in on “special treatment for celebrity” grounds. But “being singled out” will be the reason for deportation. Which is clearly populist, and populist moves have a habit of coming back to bite those who make them.
From what I have gleaned from BBC news he is claiming a medical exemption on the grounds that he had a positive PCR test on 16th December. Apparently a recent infection is an alternative to the vaccines. If so, this is going to be a difficult trick to repeat. Is being unvaccinated really compatible with the itinerary of an international tennis star? I really don't think so.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
amusing to see the left in a dilemma - which is worse ? Privileged super rich tennis star v evil right-wing Conservative government? Whoyagonnapick?!
Business before pleasure so hating on fat fucking Scottie from Marketing first.
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
That is a fallacious argument. We are not criticising the system which allows both the original decision and the court case to overturn it. We are criticising the ineptitude of a Government that can give someone documented permission to travel to their country and then can cancel that permission for what appear to be reasons of political expediency.
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
Can you think of another famous tennis star struggling elsewhere?
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Like all these discussions I tend to thing these sorts of claims are a bit exaggerated. Often said by people who also complain about the power of the BBC, right wing press barons etc etc
I would say that being on TikTok is becoming where being on Facebook and Twitter was a few years ago. The age range on TikTok is growing older.
We can lament this. Or say that a politician has to know what is happening, just as they read the local papers in their constituency in the 19th Cent.
My children, as they've grown older, are watching more BBC. Solely on iPlayer - to them, the BBC is another streaming service. I will say it again - if the BBC had got the rights issue sorted out (it had the commercial power) and really gone for a world wide audience, imagine the revenue. The BBC would have become truly independent - it wouldn't have needed a license fee in the UK.
Just imagine that as a pitch - "The BBC - more resources than ever before. Totally independent. Totally free in the UK."
The Australian system is a real mess. A colleague of mine from Perth in Western Australia (fully vaxxed) working offshore Norway on a rotation with all the correct visas for both countries left Oslo on 20th December to travel home. He was let into Sydney with no issue but then was refused permission to travel home to Perth in Western Australia until 14 days after he had arrived back in Australia. The weird thing is that he wasn't in quarantine. This was not a requirement from the Federal border police or Government, it was a Western Australia rule that forbid him entering the state until 14 days after he had arrived back but with no other controls. And this after 2 years of traveling to and from Norway under the same circumstances but without this last delay.
Doesn't WA have like 1 case whereas Vicky and NSW have rates similar to here ?
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
That is a fallacious argument. We are not criticising the system which allows both the original decision and the court case to overturn it. We are criticising the ineptitude of a Government that can give someone documented permission to travel to their country and then can cancel that permission for what appear to be reasons of political expediency.
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
The Victorian state government is Labor controlled and they were the ones who originally gave him permission
The federal govt were asked to check the visas in advance and declined saying it was a matter for the Victorian Govt.
It seems the Oz Gvt lost the case not on the substance but as a consequence of how Novax was treated - as often, such cases are lost on the way something was done rather than the fact of its doing.
Yes, to tell someone they'll discuss it in the morning after he's had a rest, and then cancel it overnight seems indefensible, regardless of the other merits of the case.
Richard T's question of what would have happened if he wasn't famous is interesting. My guess is that he'd have been rejected but we'd never have heard about it. There is a lot of pretty arbitrary decision-making on visas out there.
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
That is a fallacious argument. We are not criticising the system which allows both the original decision and the court case to overturn it. We are criticising the ineptitude of a Government that can give someone documented permission to travel to their country and then can cancel that permission for what appear to be reasons of political expediency.
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
The Victorian state government is Labor controlled and they were the ones who originally gave him permission
The federal govt were asked to check the visas in advance and declined saying it was a matter for the Victorian Govt.
And the Victorian government clearly did not do so properly hence the Federal Government has had to intervene to cancel it
Manufacturers have warned that Brexit will add to soaring costs facing British industry, amid concerns that customs delays and red tape will rank among the biggest challenges for firms this year.
Make UK, the industry body representing 20,000 manufacturing firms of all sizes from across the country, said that while optimism among its members had grown, it was being undermined by the after-effects of the UK’s departure from the EU.
One year on from the end of the transition period, two-thirds of industrial company leaders in its survey of 228 firms said Brexit had moderately or significantly hampered their business. More than half of firms warned they were likely to suffer further damage this year from customs delays due to import checks and changes to product labelling.
According to the 2022 MakeUK/PwC senior executive survey, Brexit disruption remains among the biggest concerns facing industry bosses for the year ahead as Britain’s departure from the EU complicates the fallout from Covid-19 and the rising costs facing companies.
Delays at customs, the additional costs from meeting separate regulatory regimes in the UK and the EU, and reduced access to migrant workers were among top concerns raised in the survey.
The British company that bid on the passports put in a ludicrous bid, thinking that because they were British they would win. It was one of those government-contract-will-fill-the-pension-fund-hole-and-pay-c-suite-bonus bids.
The Australian system is a real mess. A colleague of mine from Perth in Western Australia (fully vaxxed) working offshore Norway on a rotation with all the correct visas for both countries left Oslo on 20th December to travel home. He was let into Sydney with no issue but then was refused permission to travel home to Perth in Western Australia until 14 days after he had arrived back in Australia. The weird thing is that he wasn't in quarantine. This was not a requirement from the Federal border police or Government, it was a Western Australia rule that forbid him entering the state until 14 days after he had arrived back but with no other controls. And this after 2 years of traveling to and from Norway under the same circumstances but without this last delay.
Doesn't WA have like 1 case whereas Vicky and NSW have rates similar to here ?
Ye just checked, WA has amongst the lowest covid rates in the world, and the rest of populated Oz is sky high
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
That is a fallacious argument. We are not criticising the system which allows both the original decision and the court case to overturn it. We are criticising the ineptitude of a Government that can give someone documented permission to travel to their country and then can cancel that permission for what appear to be reasons of political expediency.
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
The Victorian state government is Labor controlled and they were the ones who originally gave him permission
The federal govt were asked to check the visas in advance and declined saying it was a matter for the Victorian Govt.
And the Victorian government clearly did not do so properly hence the Federal Government has had to intervene to cancel it
As I understand it the Federal govt has powers to reject visas not available to states.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Like all these discussions I tend to thing these sorts of claims are a bit exaggerated. Often said by people who also complain about the power of the BBC, right wing press barons etc etc
I would say that being on TikTok is becoming where being on Facebook and Twitter was a few years ago. The age range on TikTok is growing older.
We can lament this. Or say that a politician has to know what is happening, just as they read the local papers in their constituency in the 19th Cent.
My children, as they've grown older, are watching more BBC. Solely on iPlayer - to them, the BBC is another streaming service. I will say it again - if the BBC had got the rights issue sorted out (it had the commercial power) and really gone for a world wide audience, imagine the revenue. The BBC would have become truly independent - it wouldn't have needed a license fee in the UK.
Just imagine that as a pitch - "The BBC - more resources than ever before. Totally independent. Totally free in the UK."
If the BBC had set up a $10/month subscription service, available worldwide and with most of the back catalogue included, they would have made more than enough money to abolish the licence fee in the UK, probably several times over. They’d be paying dividends to the government right now.
It’s probably not too late either, although they’ve missed the boat of first mover advantage to Netflix and Disney.
Interesting write-up in The Grocer on the Public Accounts Committee's report on the CAP-replacement Environmental Land Management program.
Summary? The scheme 'lacks detail and is based on “blind optimism”.' The plan will cut in half direct subsidy payments by 24/25 which the committee notes the risk that smaller and tenant farmers "who are operating on wafer-thin margins will go out of business"
' “We have known we were replacing the CAP since 2016 and still we see no clear plans, objectives or communications with those at the sharp end – farmers – in this multi-billion pound, radical overhaul of the way land is used and, more crucially, food is produced in this country,” said committee chair and veteran Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown.'
What an absolute fiasco. As with the customs SNAFU the government are all talk and no action. Whilst the Welsh Nationalist from Essex always says "we have delivered farmers from CAP as they wanted" that wasn't supposed to be the end game. Leaving the EU is the first step - what you do afterwards is critical.
Simple point - we either make farms economically viable or we're back to being massively reliant on imported food. Which is the reverse of what Brexit proclaimed and is strategically stupid. That the government don't know what to do, and think "cut subsidies in half" will work is lunacy.
The Tories had farmers and fishermen as a client vote for a while. Who will they vote for in 2024? Won't be Tory if dogma and incompetence threaten their industry and way of life.
Manufacturers have warned that Brexit will add to soaring costs facing British industry, amid concerns that customs delays and red tape will rank among the biggest challenges for firms this year.
Make UK, the industry body representing 20,000 manufacturing firms of all sizes from across the country, said that while optimism among its members had grown, it was being undermined by the after-effects of the UK’s departure from the EU.
One year on from the end of the transition period, two-thirds of industrial company leaders in its survey of 228 firms said Brexit had moderately or significantly hampered their business. More than half of firms warned they were likely to suffer further damage this year from customs delays due to import checks and changes to product labelling.
According to the 2022 MakeUK/PwC senior executive survey, Brexit disruption remains among the biggest concerns facing industry bosses for the year ahead as Britain’s departure from the EU complicates the fallout from Covid-19 and the rising costs facing companies.
Delays at customs, the additional costs from meeting separate regulatory regimes in the UK and the EU, and reduced access to migrant workers were among top concerns raised in the survey.
The British company that bid on the passports put in a ludicrous bid, thinking that because they were British they would win. It was one of those government-contract-will-fill-the-pension-fund-hole-and-pay-c-suite-bonus bids.
Yep. De La Rue, who had been doing it for decades and thought they were the only serious bidder.
It seems the Oz Gvt lost the case not on the substance but as a consequence of how Novax was treated - as often, such cases are lost on the way something was done rather than the fact of its doing.
Yes, to tell someone they'll discuss it in the morning after he's had a rest, and then cancel it overnight seems indefensible, regardless of the other merits of the case.
Richard T's question of what would have happened if he wasn't famous is interesting. My guess is that he'd have been rejected but we'd never have heard about it. There is a lot of pretty arbitrary decision-making on visas out there.
We’ll yes and no. It appears that there were a couple of other players who got let in without issues, who only got deported as a result of all visas being reviewed in the light of the publicity surrounding Djokovic.
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
That is a fallacious argument. We are not criticising the system which allows both the original decision and the court case to overturn it. We are criticising the ineptitude of a Government that can give someone documented permission to travel to their country and then can cancel that permission for what appear to be reasons of political expediency.
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
The Victorian state government is Labor controlled and they were the ones who originally gave him permission
The federal govt were asked to check the visas in advance and declined saying it was a matter for the Victorian Govt.
And the Victorian government clearly did not do so properly hence the Federal Government has had to intervene to cancel it
As I understand it the Federal govt has powers to reject visas not available to states.
Which the Federal Immigration Minister is about to now use to deport Djokovic
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Like all these discussions I tend to thing these sorts of claims are a bit exaggerated. Often said by people who also complain about the power of the BBC, right wing press barons etc etc
I would say that being on TikTok is becoming where being on Facebook and Twitter was a few years ago. The age range on TikTok is growing older.
We can lament this. Or say that a politician has to know what is happening, just as they read the local papers in their constituency in the 19th Cent.
My children, as they've grown older, are watching more BBC. Solely on iPlayer - to them, the BBC is another streaming service. I will say it again - if the BBC had got the rights issue sorted out (it had the commercial power) and really gone for a world wide audience, imagine the revenue. The BBC would have become truly independent - it wouldn't have needed a license fee in the UK.
Just imagine that as a pitch - "The BBC - more resources than ever before. Totally independent. Totally free in the UK."
If the BBC had set up a $10/month subscription service, available worldwide and with most of the back catalogue included, they would have made more than enough money to abolish the licence fee in the UK, probably several times over. They’d be paying dividends to the government right now.
It’s probably not too late either, although they’ve missed the boat of first mover advantage to Netflix and Disney.
The BBC doesn’t own the global rights to most of its big shows, it’s one of the ways it’s forced to save money.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Like all these discussions I tend to thing these sorts of claims are a bit exaggerated. Often said by people who also complain about the power of the BBC, right wing press barons etc etc
I would say that being on TikTok is becoming where being on Facebook and Twitter was a few years ago. The age range on TikTok is growing older.
We can lament this. Or say that a politician has to know what is happening, just as they read the local papers in their constituency in the 19th Cent.
My children, as they've grown older, are watching more BBC. Solely on iPlayer - to them, the BBC is another streaming service. I will say it again - if the BBC had got the rights issue sorted out (it had the commercial power) and really gone for a world wide audience, imagine the revenue. The BBC would have become truly independent - it wouldn't have needed a license fee in the UK.
Just imagine that as a pitch - "The BBC - more resources than ever before. Totally independent. Totally free in the UK."
If the BBC had set up a $10/month subscription service, available worldwide and with most of the back catalogue included, they would have made more than enough money to abolish the licence fee in the UK, probably several times over. They’d be paying dividends to the government right now.
It’s probably not too late either, although they’ve missed the boat of first mover advantage to Netflix and Disney.
The BBC doesn’t own the global rights to most of its big shows, it’s one of the ways it’s forced to save money.
The other way was to buy the global rights and *use* them. Instead of following the modern management mantra of outsourcing "non-core business"
Australian government looking like a bunch of total arseholes. Not for the first time.
They aren't, Australian swing voters are with Morrison not the judge or Tennis Australia on this. Morrison has his eye on swing voters in an election year, the longer this stays in the headlines the better for him. Losing a few anti vaxxers who back Djokovic to One Nation on the primary vote is not much of a problem given the swing voters he could win back from Labor on the 2PP
Is this another of the times you applaud in this case a government opposing the court system and effectively overturning a court judgement because it is electorally popular?
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Like all these discussions I tend to thing these sorts of claims are a bit exaggerated. Often said by people who also complain about the power of the BBC, right wing press barons etc etc
I would say that being on TikTok is becoming where being on Facebook and Twitter was a few years ago. The age range on TikTok is growing older.
We can lament this. Or say that a politician has to know what is happening, just as they read the local papers in their constituency in the 19th Cent.
My children, as they've grown older, are watching more BBC. Solely on iPlayer - to them, the BBC is another streaming service. I will say it again - if the BBC had got the rights issue sorted out (it had the commercial power) and really gone for a world wide audience, imagine the revenue. The BBC would have become truly independent - it wouldn't have needed a license fee in the UK.
Just imagine that as a pitch - "The BBC - more resources than ever before. Totally independent. Totally free in the UK."
If the BBC had set up a $10/month subscription service, available worldwide and with most of the back catalogue included, they would have made more than enough money to abolish the licence fee in the UK, probably several times over. They’d be paying dividends to the government right now.
It’s probably not too late either, although they’ve missed the boat of first mover advantage to Netflix and Disney.
The BBC doesn’t own the global rights to most of its big shows, it’s one of the ways it’s forced to save money.
Oh indeed. They have contracted out so much production, and often left said production company with the global rights. Another example of short-sightedness over the past decade or two, when they should have realised the value of such rights.
Significant police presence at the office of Djokovic's lawyers on Collins St, Melbourne. White vans heading into underground car park. Reports that Australian federal police heading in to arrest him. Immigration minister has four hours in which to re-cancel his visa.
When people criticise the Australian government, it’s a good idea to pause and remember that this would not have happened in more authoritarian regimes around the word. The fact that a government can lose a court case is a good thing.
That is a fallacious argument. We are not criticising the system which allows both the original decision and the court case to overturn it. We are criticising the ineptitude of a Government that can give someone documented permission to travel to their country and then can cancel that permission for what appear to be reasons of political expediency.
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
The Victorian state government is Labor controlled and they were the ones who originally gave him permission
The federal govt were asked to check the visas in advance and declined saying it was a matter for the Victorian Govt.
And the Victorian government clearly did not do so properly hence the Federal Government has had to intervene to cancel it
As I understand it the Federal govt has powers to reject visas not available to states.
Which the Federal Immigration Minister is about to now use to deport Djokovic
So what your comment about “the Vic govt didn’t do it properly” all about?
The point was that the Federal Govt could have made it clear when asked originally that Djokovic wouldn’t be allowed in. Instead they initially washed their hands of it (deliberately?), thereby manufacturing a media storm, only to then take the popular(/populist?) decision to overrule Vic Govt/courts for political brownie points in an election year and chuck Djok out. When it could have been all easily quietly averted weeks ago.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
That's pretty appalling about TikTok. But I've not had a TV for years - I'd rather watch movies when it's convenient than when they happen to be broadcast, so Netflix works for me. I recently spent a few nights in the guest room of someone who was recently widowed and scared to be alone, and they had Sky with 100 or so channels. Apart from the BBC channels they seemed amazingly similar (and for my taste amazingly crap) - wall to wall game shows, comedies and sub-Bond action movies.
I used to think that when we had 100 channels there would be a sort of PR, with maybe 50% as above and the rest addressing a range of different audiences. But apparently nearly everyone's going for the Mail/Sun market.
Interesting write-up in The Grocer on the Public Accounts Committee's report on the CAP-replacement Environmental Land Management program.
Summary? The scheme 'lacks detail and is based on “blind optimism”.' The plan will cut in half direct subsidy payments by 24/25 which the committee notes the risk that smaller and tenant farmers "who are operating on wafer-thin margins will go out of business"
' “We have known we were replacing the CAP since 2016 and still we see no clear plans, objectives or communications with those at the sharp end – farmers – in this multi-billion pound, radical overhaul of the way land is used and, more crucially, food is produced in this country,” said committee chair and veteran Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown.'
What an absolute fiasco. As with the customs SNAFU the government are all talk and no action. Whilst the Welsh Nationalist from Essex always says "we have delivered farmers from CAP as they wanted" that wasn't supposed to be the end game. Leaving the EU is the first step - what you do afterwards is critical.
Simple point - we either make farms economically viable or we're back to being massively reliant on imported food. Which is the reverse of what Brexit proclaimed and is strategically stupid. That the government don't know what to do, and think "cut subsidies in half" will work is lunacy.
The Tories had farmers and fishermen as a client vote for a while. Who will they vote for in 2024? Won't be Tory if dogma and incompetence threaten their industry and way of life.
It's up to the consumers, finally. If they want to pay more for UK-produced agricultural goods (if domestic produce turns out to be more expensive) then everyone is happy. If not, then the consumers will be happy but not some farmers.
Speaking to my man on the combine over the weekend he seems to think that the Australian deal is a red herring because over the course of its 10-year term growig demand from China will mean that nothing produced in Australia will ever leave Asia. As for the environmental scheme he believes that the benefits will accrue to large landowners which may present a problem for the government politically.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
I've never really bothered with it either, beyond understanding what it is. I've always thought of it as being ok as entertainment but a poor medium to discuss anything remotely serious.
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
She’s far from alone. An awful lot of people have totally abandoned old patterns of media usage, eg tv. Watching tv has become a sign that you are way out of the game.
Like all these discussions I tend to thing these sorts of claims are a bit exaggerated. Often said by people who also complain about the power of the BBC, right wing press barons etc etc
I would say that being on TikTok is becoming where being on Facebook and Twitter was a few years ago. The age range on TikTok is growing older.
We can lament this. Or say that a politician has to know what is happening, just as they read the local papers in their constituency in the 19th Cent.
My children, as they've grown older, are watching more BBC. Solely on iPlayer - to them, the BBC is another streaming service. I will say it again - if the BBC had got the rights issue sorted out (it had the commercial power) and really gone for a world wide audience, imagine the revenue. The BBC would have become truly independent - it wouldn't have needed a license fee in the UK.
Just imagine that as a pitch - "The BBC - more resources than ever before. Totally independent. Totally free in the UK."
If the BBC had set up a $10/month subscription service, available worldwide and with most of the back catalogue included, they would have made more than enough money to abolish the licence fee in the UK, probably several times over. They’d be paying dividends to the government right now.
It’s probably not too late either, although they’ve missed the boat of first mover advantage to Netflix and Disney.
The BBC doesn’t own the global rights to most of its big shows, it’s one of the ways it’s forced to save money.
The other way was to buy the global rights and *use* them. Instead of following the modern management mantra of outsourcing "non-core business"
They don’t have the cash and never had. The BBC funded it’s U.K. content at a discount by providing incentives for production houses to then sell shows abroad. To have gone global would have taken massive investment at a time the government was pulling money out of the BBC. It could have been done, but under pressure from private media outlets the government wanted a smaller BBC. Did you know much of IPlayer content is available under the same time shifting rules that once enabled people to use VHS players? It’s done on a shoestring.
Comments
https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/22/new-brexit-blue-british-passports-actually-made-poland-12283240/
What stood out to me was Nadia Whittome (MP) saying in a newspaper interview that she doesn't watch films, she spends her evenings on tic tok. These are the people we elect to parliament.
And btw, anyone who gets his appeal/JR resolved in days including a ruling on an adjournment over a weekend is definitely receiving special treatment.
Has the calibre of our elected representatives ever been lower?
Its not a slam dunk decision to just ban them from entering, because that will effectively put an end to the credibility of their major sporting tournaments, as many participants won't be able to enter.
Places like the UK are unlikely to impose such restrictions (for as long as we have the current government, at least) so they will ultimately benefit, if countries go down this route.
As I understand it Tennis Australia asked the Aus Govt to pre-empt all this by checking Visas in advance of travel. The Federal Govt declined and said it was an issue for Victorian authorities on entry. The suspicion is that it was a manufactured crisis done for political reasons. Which now has great potential to backfire on them if they can’t rely on the courts to back them up.
They’ll go through the motions with his well-paid lawyers, then deport him anyway.
The options he had, were to either be vaccinated or take a fortnight’s quarantine, as hundreds of thousands of others have done in Australia during the pandemic.
It’s going to be pretty much impossible to live life as an unvaccinated touring sportsman, each country they visit will have their own rules about vaccines, testing and quarantine.
I wonder how much attention the F1 circus is paying to all these goings-on with the tennis players? They are supposed to be in Melbourne in April, after two years off, only on the condition that they won’t have to quarantine - presumably the same standards that are being applied to the tennis tournament.
I am wondering if he is actually not allowed to enter Australia, but the judge has allowed him in as he was given a reasonable belief by Tennis Australia (is it a Government agency?) that he was, and procedural irregularities.
In any case, the way Corona is going through NSW, there's no reason to continue with the restrictions.
Hopefully the site administrators keep user IPs under lock and key or I might need a restraining order against this obsessive weirdo.
Anyway hope all else have a good week. Yesterday’s weather was a joy, the first of the bluebells have begun to sprout in these parts. Spring and the end of the pandemic is around the corner.
I'm surprised, and TBH, rather saddened, at Djokovic's 'win'. Inclined to agree with Mr Lilburne, above, "he is actually not allowed to enter Australia, but the judge has allowed him in as he was given a reasonable belief by Tennis Australia that he was, and procedural irregularities.'
Mr. Sandpit, wouldn't be surprised if Australia, and other places, ended up cancelled.
Incidentally, not sure if it was you or someone elsewhere who suggested it, but I do wonder if Vietnam is now permanently off the agenda.
France is moving towards making their “vaxports” dependent on receiving a booster. Will it then move towards “booster if a booster” or will the move pretty quickly be in the other direction…?
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/01/07/the-case-for-updating-covid-19-vaccines-for-the-omicron-variant
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1547278/Covid-news-cases-Clive-Dix-endemic-pandemic-booster-latest-updates-vn
DEAR Boris,
You're a shambles. I don’t say that lightly.
You’re the Prime Minister of my great country and as such, I fervently want you NOT to be a shambles. But all the current evidence suggests that by the dictionary definition of that word — “In a state of total disorder” — you’re officially a shambles.
You’re a character, and God knows, we need more of those in a public life so currently neutered by the dreary, joy-sucking woke brigade. But running the country, in fact any country, requires you to not just BE a character but to HAVE character.
And this is where you’re failing so miserably.
Let’s be frank: You’ve destroyed much of that trust in just two disastrous years, and many of those people who broke the habit of a lifetime to vote Tory because they admired your “Let’s get Brexit done!” chutzpah are now so disillusioned, they’re telling pollsters they’ll never support you again.
And sorry Boris, but you’ve only got yourself to blame. Trust in you has been burned, not earned.
What’s wrecking your premiership is your aversion to honesty and accountability. And by your own personal refusal to play by the rules.
You’ve waltzed through life telling brazen whoppers to escape punishment whenever the manure’s hit the fan either professionally or personally, but you can’t do it now that you’re Prime Minister. And every time you try, you further harm your own reputation and that of your government, party, and country.
Stop being a shambles, Boris, and start getting more things done, or admit that being Prime Minister is simply too much for you and let someone else do it — before the party takes that decision for you.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britain-free-coronavirus-by-august-outgoing-vaccine-task-force-chief-says-2021-05-07/
We certainly were not free of covid by august, and no it wasn't delta omicron coming along wot did it.
The annual flu vaccine model for older and at risk individuals is much more likely.
Not least because governments will be hesitant to hand Pfizer several billion every year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/01/09/novak-djokovic-latest-news-australian-open-verdict-covid-vaccine/
I would also ask how likely this outcome would have been if Djokovic had not been a world famous tennis star?
I feel sorry for Novak Djokovic.
The Australian system is a real mess. A colleague of mine from Perth in Western Australia (fully vaxxed) working offshore Norway on a rotation with all the correct visas for both countries left Oslo on 20th December to travel home. He was let into Sydney with no issue but then was refused permission to travel home to Perth in Western Australia until 14 days after he had arrived back in Australia. The weird thing is that he wasn't in quarantine. This was not a requirement from the Federal border police or Government, it was a Western Australia rule that forbid him entering the state until 14 days after he had arrived back but with no other controls. And this after 2 years of traveling to and from Norway under the same circumstances but without this last delay.
We can lament this. Or say that a politician has to know what is happening, just as they read the local papers in their constituency in the 19th Cent.
My children, as they've grown older, are watching more BBC. Solely on iPlayer - to them, the BBC is another streaming service. I will say it again - if the BBC had got the rights issue sorted out (it had the commercial power) and really gone for a world wide audience, imagine the revenue. The BBC would have become truly independent - it wouldn't have needed a license fee in the UK.
Just imagine that as a pitch - "The BBC - more resources than ever before. Totally independent. Totally free in the UK."
Richard T's question of what would have happened if he wasn't famous is interesting. My guess is that he'd have been rejected but we'd never have heard about it. There is a lot of pretty arbitrary decision-making on visas out there.
It’s probably not too late either, although they’ve missed the boat of first mover advantage to Netflix and Disney.
Summary? The scheme 'lacks detail and is based on “blind optimism”.' The plan will cut in half direct subsidy payments by 24/25 which the committee notes the risk that smaller and tenant farmers "who are operating on wafer-thin margins will go out of business"
' “We have known we were replacing the CAP since 2016 and still we see no clear plans, objectives or communications with those at the sharp end – farmers – in this multi-billion pound, radical overhaul of the way land is used and, more crucially, food is produced in this country,” said committee chair and veteran Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown.'
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sourcing/commons-committee-slams-governments-post-cap-farming-plans/663319.article
What an absolute fiasco. As with the customs SNAFU the government are all talk and no action. Whilst the Welsh Nationalist from Essex always says "we have delivered farmers from CAP as they wanted" that wasn't supposed to be the end game. Leaving the EU is the first step - what you do afterwards is critical.
Simple point - we either make farms economically viable or we're back to being massively reliant on imported food. Which is the reverse of what Brexit proclaimed and is strategically stupid. That the government don't know what to do, and think "cut subsidies in half" will work is lunacy.
The Tories had farmers and fishermen as a client vote for a while. Who will they vote for in 2024? Won't be Tory if dogma and incompetence threaten their industry and way of life.
https://twitter.com/oliverbrown_tel/status/1480453991062405121?s=21
The point was that the Federal Govt could have made it clear when asked originally that Djokovic wouldn’t be allowed in. Instead they initially washed their hands of it (deliberately?), thereby manufacturing a media storm, only to then take the popular(/populist?) decision to overrule Vic Govt/courts for political brownie points in an election year and chuck Djok out. When it could have been all easily quietly averted weeks ago.
I used to think that when we had 100 channels there would be a sort of PR, with maybe 50% as above and the rest addressing a range of different audiences. But apparently nearly everyone's going for the Mail/Sun market.
Speaking to my man on the combine over the weekend he seems to think that the Australian deal is a red herring because over the course of its 10-year term growig demand from China will mean that nothing produced in Australia will ever leave Asia. As for the environmental scheme he believes that the benefits will accrue to large landowners which may present a problem for the government politically.