Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"Saving the environment" isn't exactly unattainable, but it will need an element of evolution.
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"unattainable" is nonsense. The minimum target, which is just to make things slightly less bad than the worst case, is pretty much attainable by definition. On specifics, 1.5C may be attainable but if it turns out not to be, we set a new target of say 2C and aim for that.
If the effect of a protest is to turn opinion away from view held by the protesters, then we must assume that this is the aim of those encouraging the protest.
It is more to bring a certain point of view to public attention. Mainstream thought is either (among an aging and decreasing band of idiots) that there is nothing to worry about, OR it's a problem but look at all these splendid wind farms and Teslas, have it licked in no time. What might be true (and anyone claiming to know for certain that it is true, or false, is an idiot) is that we are not doing nearly enough. That message is being discussed (here, now, by me), so success on the protesters' terms.
What is this thing you call "public attention"?
One thing that's definitely happening is that the cadres' attitude towards the actual real "public" is hardening - and from what was already a hard position given the castes they come from. (This is Britain after all.) Another thing is they're getting more skilled at recruitment for mounting shall we say hairy ops.
I'm by no means opposed to a hardening of attitude towards "the public" in all circumstances, but this is happening in this particular circumstance and these outfits all track back to Steinerism if you look carefully enough. Steinerites believe in epochal change by catastrophe. I shudder to think what comes next. People may soon start to be killed. And in no cult whatsoever are the beliefs in a narrow tier near the top identical to the beliefs even in the next tier down.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence is never a solution. Surely you know that
Anyway environmental issues are constantly in the news and not only in the news on magazine shows and weather reports.
It is something that is regularly out there.
Father Lenin said that one cannot make a revolution in white gloves.
And we are all living with the consequences of his idiocy a century later.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"Saving the environment" isn't exactly unattainable, but it will need an element of evolution.
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"Saving the environment" isn't exactly unattainable, but it will need an element of evolution.
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
1. I am now pretty convinced Biden will run and will get the nomination. If he had been given a shellacking, he would have found it harder to present himself as the unity candidate. If he stands down he opens the field and the risk will be a Democratic bloodletting/nominating a “feel good” candidate who won’t go down well with the country at large. Better to be a bed blocker than risk the new inhabitant of the bed burning everything down.
2. The general outlook for the GOP is as follows: if Trump is the nominee, Biden should be favourite to win. If DeSantis is the nominee, he should be the favourite to win against Biden.
The UK and Switzerland have signed a major agreement deepening the relationship between the two countries’ research and innovation communities, the two countries said this morning.
Both countries are excluded from the EU’s science partnerships.
The UK called Switzerland “a natural partner” because it is “placed top of the global rankings for innovation for the past ten consecutive years, as well as being home to two of Europe’s top ten universities, some of the world’s best research laboratories and companies such as Roche and Novartis, and commercial space and satellite technology companies.
Together the two nations have 10 of Europe’s top 20 research Universities, and this agreement will deepen an ambitious bilateral relationship in areas of mutual interest across 3 key pillars: deep science, industrial commercialisation and international standards and regulation, according to a statement.
I'm no expert in the area, but it my personal experience of studying and working in the UK and Germany, German universities are just that: seats of learning (rather than research). Unlike the UK, most of the serious research in Germany seems to be done by private companies or government-funded research centres, such as the Fraunhofer Institutes. A case in point would be the development of the first Covid vaccines. While Oxford University was at the forefront of the UK effort, research in Germany was led by the private company BionTech. Given that they don't do much research, it is not exactly surprising the German universities don't fare well in surveys that take into account quality of research!
The joke will get tired very quickly, and had been done even before Musk by verified people changing their usernames.
It's not the joke part. It's the scammer buying a verification tick and then doing a scam.
Of which there have been many examples over the last 24 hours.
I think they'd have made a lot of money by looking through all the data on blue tick applications, and getting back to all the borderline cases that were rejected, and inviting them to pay. Low hanging fruit. I applied on behalf of a professional account for a previous job; didn't get it.
If the effect of a protest is to turn opinion away from view held by the protesters, then we must assume that this is the aim of those encouraging the protest.
It is more to bring a certain point of view to public attention. Mainstream thought is either (among an aging and decreasing band of idiots) that there is nothing to worry about, OR it's a problem but look at all these splendid wind farms and Teslas, have it licked in no time. What might be true (and anyone claiming to know for certain that it is true, or false, is an idiot) is that we are not doing nearly enough. That message is being discussed (here, now, by me), so success on the protesters' terms.
What is this thing you call "public attention"?
One thing that's definitely happening is that the cadres' attitude towards the actual real "public" is hardening - and from what was already a hard position given the castes they come from. (This is Britain after all.) Another thing is they're getting more skilled at recruitment for mounting shall we say hairy ops.
I'm by no means opposed to a hardening of attitude towards "the public" in all circumstances, but this is happening in this particular circumstance and these outfits all track back to Steinerism if you look carefully enough. Steinerites believe in epochal change by catastrophe. I shudder to think what comes next. People may soon start to be killed. And in no cult whatsoever are the beliefs in a narrow tier near the top identical to the beliefs even in the next tier down.
If the effect of a protest is to turn opinion away from view held by the protesters, then we must assume that this is the aim of those encouraging the protest.
It is more to bring a certain point of view to public attention. Mainstream thought is either (among an aging and decreasing band of idiots) that there is nothing to worry about, OR it's a problem but look at all these splendid wind farms and Teslas, have it licked in no time. What might be true (and anyone claiming to know for certain that it is true, or false, is an idiot) is that we are not doing nearly enough. That message is being discussed (here, now, by me), so success on the protesters' terms.
What is this thing you call "public attention"?
One thing that's definitely happening is that the cadres' attitude towards the actual real "public" is hardening - and from what was already a hard position given the castes they come from. (This is Britain after all.) Another thing is they're getting more skilled at recruitment for mounting shall we say hairy ops.
I'm by no means opposed to a hardening of attitude towards "the public" in all circumstances, but this is happening in this particular circumstance and these outfits all track back to Steinerism if you look carefully enough. Steinerites believe in epochal change by catastrophe. I shudder to think what comes next. People may soon start to be killed. And in no cult whatsoever are the beliefs in a narrow tier near the top identical to the beliefs even in the next tier down.
I am inclined to the lazy view that they are just posh fuckwits with US funding. I do take your point about the police though: the Battle of Orgreave was, no joke, a battle. The Battle of the M25 is not.
The UK and Switzerland have signed a major agreement deepening the relationship between the two countries’ research and innovation communities, the two countries said this morning.
Both countries are excluded from the EU’s science partnerships.
The UK called Switzerland “a natural partner” because it is “placed top of the global rankings for innovation for the past ten consecutive years, as well as being home to two of Europe’s top ten universities, some of the world’s best research laboratories and companies such as Roche and Novartis, and commercial space and satellite technology companies.
Together the two nations have 10 of Europe’s top 20 research Universities, and this agreement will deepen an ambitious bilateral relationship in areas of mutual interest across 3 key pillars: deep science, industrial commercialisation and international standards and regulation, according to a statement.
I'm no expert in the area, but it my personal experience of studying and working in the UK and Germany, German universities are just that: seats of learning (rather than research). Unlike the UK, most of the serious research in Germany seems to be done by private companies or government-funded research centres, such as the Fraunhofer Institutes. A case in point would be the development of the first Covid vaccines. While Oxford University was at the forefront of the UK effort, research in Germany was led by the private company BionTech. Given that they don't do much research, it is not exactly surprising the German universities don't fare well in surveys that take into account quality of research!
In Germany, in the sciences, there is the system of MPIs (Max Planck Institutes), which operate independently of, but in close collaboration, with universities.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"Saving the environment" isn't exactly unattainable, but it will need an element of evolution.
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"Saving the environment" isn't exactly unattainable, but it will need an element of evolution.
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
Blame the Foreigners!
Blame ourselves for offshoring heavy industries and energy production in favour of overseas imports resulting in higher overall emissions.
The UK and Switzerland have signed a major agreement deepening the relationship between the two countries’ research and innovation communities, the two countries said this morning.
Both countries are excluded from the EU’s science partnerships.
The UK called Switzerland “a natural partner” because it is “placed top of the global rankings for innovation for the past ten consecutive years, as well as being home to two of Europe’s top ten universities, some of the world’s best research laboratories and companies such as Roche and Novartis, and commercial space and satellite technology companies.
Together the two nations have 10 of Europe’s top 20 research Universities, and this agreement will deepen an ambitious bilateral relationship in areas of mutual interest across 3 key pillars: deep science, industrial commercialisation and international standards and regulation, according to a statement.
I'm no expert in the area, but it my personal experience of studying and working in the UK and Germany, German universities are just that: seats of learning (rather than research). Unlike the UK, most of the serious research in Germany seems to be done by private companies or government-funded research centres, such as the Fraunhofer Institutes. A case in point would be the development of the first Covid vaccines. While Oxford University was at the forefront of the UK effort, research in Germany was led by the private company BionTech. Given that they don't do much research, it is not exactly surprising the German universities don't fare well in surveys that take into account quality of research!
Which may also be why the U.K. is not great at commercialising innovation…
For all of the missteps in this sort of area, for me, the real (and high) danger for Twitter is on simply keeping it running. He's fired swathes of the engineers who kept the entire thing going, which will include a huge chunk of institutional memory.
What would it look like?
Outages (both of specific functionality and of the entire thing) would be increasingly more likely and common as we go forwards, unless he's very lucky (or has somehow identified the specific engineers that he most needs). Getting those back will be increasingly harder. Things going weirdly wrong would start to happen (replies going to the wrong people, or DMs being exposed - that sort of thing).
A sudden catastrophic crash would be less likely (although not impossible - I don't know the specifics of how Twitter is engineered), but snowballing degradation of the capability until it has effectively gone.
That, for me, is the main risk for Twitter. Could well be wrong, but that's where my alarm bells would be ringing.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
It's still just idiots watching a few horses run round a field. In no universe does it compare with the day to day issues of getting to work, making a hospital appointment or getting the kids to school. The snobbery is all coming from you and your belief that anything you think important is anywhere near real life for 99.9% of the population.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
US inflation falling, pressure on sterling easing and equities all surging. Hopefully the BoE will benefit from this and our import inflation falls and we don't need to push rates above 5% as they hope.
The UK and Switzerland have signed a major agreement deepening the relationship between the two countries’ research and innovation communities, the two countries said this morning.
Both countries are excluded from the EU’s science partnerships.
The UK called Switzerland “a natural partner” because it is “placed top of the global rankings for innovation for the past ten consecutive years, as well as being home to two of Europe’s top ten universities, some of the world’s best research laboratories and companies such as Roche and Novartis, and commercial space and satellite technology companies.
Together the two nations have 10 of Europe’s top 20 research Universities, and this agreement will deepen an ambitious bilateral relationship in areas of mutual interest across 3 key pillars: deep science, industrial commercialisation and international standards and regulation, according to a statement.
I'm no expert in the area, but it my personal experience of studying and working in the UK and Germany, German universities are just that: seats of learning (rather than research). Unlike the UK, most of the serious research in Germany seems to be done by private companies or government-funded research centres, such as the Fraunhofer Institutes. A case in point would be the development of the first Covid vaccines. While Oxford University was at the forefront of the UK effort, research in Germany was led by the private company BionTech. Given that they don't do much research, it is not exactly surprising the German universities don't fare well in surveys that take into account quality of research!
This is ironic in view of the fact that most professors in Germany are civil servants. But yes. Academia is more academic in Germany and less $$$.
"Research" can be a globby concept if one doesn't get a tight hold on it. "Research" in the sense that many use the term, certainly in the sense in which it has been used in this thread, essentially started with DuPont in the USA in the 1910s and 1920s. (Anyone who is surprised by this statement should check it out.) The idea that it goes back to Francis Bacon or for that matter to the beginnings of "universities" in Bologna, Paris, Oxford, and Cambridge is, well, a bit twerpish. Ideas in history just don't work like that.
Incidentally the PhD system in many fields in Britain is close to breaking the bottom of the barrel, infused as it is with "produce the researcher, not the research", i.e. join the team, do what you're told, use whatever creativity you have left to think for the boss and for your pocket. Contemptible. "We hire PhD students with potential to bring in research money to the department" is a typical approach.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
Thanks. A useful antidote to the 'one size fits all response to events' view so prevalent on here.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
That's good to hear.
Must be a recent change.
This from July:
"What if colleagues are Covid-19 positive but feel well enough to work?
If colleagues are unable to attend work because they are Covid positive although feel well enough to work, managers will try to support them to either work from home or by doing different type of work or duties where appropriate. Where this is not possible and colleagues are not able to attend work because of infection control reasons they would be paid as if they are at work. This would be recorded as authorised absence and not sickness absence. As this is authorised absence, it will not count towards the sickness absence triggers."
How would they know, as testing has stopped? I haven't had a test in 6 months or more.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence is never a solution. Surely you know that
Anyway environmental issues are constantly in the news and not only in the news on magazine shows and weather reports.
It is something that is regularly out there.
Father Lenin said that one cannot make a revolution in white gloves.
Mao Tse Tung Said Change Must Come, Change Must Come Through the Barrel of a Gun
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
It's still just idiots watching a few horses run round a field. In no universe does it compare with the day to day issues of getting to work, making a hospital appointment or getting the kids to school. The snobbery is all coming from you and your belief that anything you think important is anywhere near real life for 99.9% of the population.
Errrm, OK.
500,000 is over 1% of the population of the UK at the relevant time.
My comment was about the likely reaction of the public at the time, not of an hypothetical 1913 me. I have, for the record, zero interest in or knowledge of flat racing.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
That's good to hear.
Must be a recent change.
This from July:
"What if colleagues are Covid-19 positive but feel well enough to work?
If colleagues are unable to attend work because they are Covid positive although feel well enough to work, managers will try to support them to either work from home or by doing different type of work or duties where appropriate. Where this is not possible and colleagues are not able to attend work because of infection control reasons they would be paid as if they are at work. This would be recorded as authorised absence and not sickness absence. As this is authorised absence, it will not count towards the sickness absence triggers."
How would they know, as testing has stopped? I haven't had a test in 6 months or more.
People are still testing themselves.
Most people are not as far as I can see because they are unwilling to spend the money.
The organisers of Just Stop Oil will be absolutely delighted withe the huge amount of publicity their campaign is getting. From a marketing perspective, it really is as simple as that.
By-election for our council ward today. When we first moved there there was one Labour councillor out of two. Shortly afterwards she was defeated and since then the ward has been safe Conservative. However, at the last election, both Conservatives were defeated by independents with green support. One of them has now resigned, and the candidates are Conservative Labour and independent. We have seen nothing from the Conservatives, but have had literature from both Labour and the independent. I wonder what will happen. This is in Priti Patel’s constituency!
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
Racing - lots of toffs and lots of oiks. Misses out the middle.
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
Routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is still happening in the social care sector, meaning that if 10% of the population have Covid at a time, then ~10% of Social Care staff are at home not working even if asymptomatic.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches. Edit: She sounds like an ex-colleague of mine who was oh-so-attuned to the feelings of Mother Earth while flying regularly to Bali to hear the preachings of her favourite guru.
The UK and Switzerland have signed a major agreement deepening the relationship between the two countries’ research and innovation communities, the two countries said this morning.
Both countries are excluded from the EU’s science partnerships.
The UK called Switzerland “a natural partner” because it is “placed top of the global rankings for innovation for the past ten consecutive years, as well as being home to two of Europe’s top ten universities, some of the world’s best research laboratories and companies such as Roche and Novartis, and commercial space and satellite technology companies.
Together the two nations have 10 of Europe’s top 20 research Universities, and this agreement will deepen an ambitious bilateral relationship in areas of mutual interest across 3 key pillars: deep science, industrial commercialisation and international standards and regulation, according to a statement.
I'm no expert in the area, but it my personal experience of studying and working in the UK and Germany, German universities are just that: seats of learning (rather than research). Unlike the UK, most of the serious research in Germany seems to be done by private companies or government-funded research centres, such as the Fraunhofer Institutes. A case in point would be the development of the first Covid vaccines. While Oxford University was at the forefront of the UK effort, research in Germany was led by the private company BionTech. Given that they don't do much research, it is not exactly surprising the German universities don't fare well in surveys that take into account quality of research!
This is ironic in view of the fact that most professors in Germany are civil servants. But yes. Academia is more academic in Germany and less $$$.
"Research" can be a globby concept if one doesn't get a tight hold on it. "Research" in the sense that many use the term, certainly in the sense in which it has been used in this thread, essentially started with DuPont in the USA in the 1910s and 1920s. (Anyone who is surprised by this statement should check it out.) The idea that it goes back to Francis Bacon or for that matter to the beginnings of "universities" in Bologna, Paris, Oxford, and Cambridge is, well, a bit twerpish. Ideas in history just don't work like that.
Incidentally the PhD system in many fields in Britain is close to breaking the bottom of the barrel, infused as it is with "produce the researcher, not the research", i.e. join the team, do what you're told, use whatever creativity you have left to think for the boss and for your pocket. Contemptible. "We hire PhD students with potential to bring in research money to the department" is a typical approach.
I am smiling as I reread this, imagining senior professors reading that last statement and thinking "What's wrong with that?" LOL
The NHS shouldn't have been funding non-medically necessary procedures in the first place in my opinion.
"Circumcisions, tummy tucks and liposuction are among 13 operations which will stop being funded by the NHS in a 'crackdown' on wasteful spending in a bid to save £2bn a year"
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches.
Well, quite. I do not think the effect of that anecdote is the one intended by the narrator.
The UK and Switzerland have signed a major agreement deepening the relationship between the two countries’ research and innovation communities, the two countries said this morning.
Both countries are excluded from the EU’s science partnerships.
The UK called Switzerland “a natural partner” because it is “placed top of the global rankings for innovation for the past ten consecutive years, as well as being home to two of Europe’s top ten universities, some of the world’s best research laboratories and companies such as Roche and Novartis, and commercial space and satellite technology companies.
Together the two nations have 10 of Europe’s top 20 research Universities, and this agreement will deepen an ambitious bilateral relationship in areas of mutual interest across 3 key pillars: deep science, industrial commercialisation and international standards and regulation, according to a statement.
I'm no expert in the area, but it my personal experience of studying and working in the UK and Germany, German universities are just that: seats of learning (rather than research). Unlike the UK, most of the serious research in Germany seems to be done by private companies or government-funded research centres, such as the Fraunhofer Institutes. A case in point would be the development of the first Covid vaccines. While Oxford University was at the forefront of the UK effort, research in Germany was led by the private company BionTech. Given that they don't do much research, it is not exactly surprising the German universities don't fare well in surveys that take into account quality of research!
This is ironic in view of the fact that most professors in Germany are civil servants. But yes. Academia is more academic in Germany and less $$$.
"Research" can be a globby concept if one doesn't get a tight hold on it. "Research" in the sense that many use the term, certainly in the sense in which it has been used in this thread, essentially started with DuPont in the USA in the 1910s and 1920s. (Anyone who is surprised by this statement should check it out.) The idea that it goes back to Francis Bacon or for that matter to the beginnings of "universities" in Bologna, Paris, Oxford, and Cambridge is, well, a bit twerpish. Ideas in history just don't work like that.
Untrue. As an example, most of the theory and maths used in the creation of fibre optics came from the research done in the mid 19th century by my great, great (a few times) Uncle John Tyndall into the action of light trapped in a stream of water. He was also the man who devised the theories (and maths) of Greenhouse gases, which is why the main UK climate change institute is named after him. Research - real, experimental, world changing stuff as we understand it - has been going on in universities for at least a couple of centuries.
US inflation falling, pressure on sterling easing and equities all surging. Hopefully the BoE will benefit from this and our import inflation falls and we don't need to push rates above 5% as they hope.
House price crash off! Get on the ladder before a starter home anywhere except Great Yarmouth costs more than Twitter!
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
Racing - lots of toffs and lots of oiks. Misses out the middle.
It's why the middle is so uncomfortable, as portrayed in that scything documentary from John Cleese and the Two Ronnies.
Dukes and dustmen rub along like a house on fire. It's the middle that is confused both "upwards" and "downwards". Not wishing to personalise it, but rather to give a real life example, it's why you are all over the place. By your own fantastic efforts you have been transported into the middle classes but are not entirely sure what (in particular socio-economic) attitudes you should adopt now that you're there.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches. Edit: She sounds like an ex-colleague of mine who was oh-so-attuned to the feelings of Mother Earth while flying regularly to Bali to hear the preachings of her favourite guru.
Nope, everyone has to make a living. And until she can afford to find somewhere to live up here permanently it is either commute or unemployment. Again, real world stuff rather than the arrogant fantasy that you and Ishmael indulge in.
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
As a Remainer, I long held the view that, because of the disparity in the shortages/surpluses of workers in the skilled and unskilled categories, a large chunk of the political class was driving us off a cliff.
That is, celebrating immigration is all well and good. For the skilled and highly educated, the world wide shortages of equivalent labour means that we are protected against wage deflation, even if you had completely open borders. For the unskilled/low skilled the reverse is true. The minimum wage became the maximum wage in a range of jobs.
If you want a policy to work in a democracy, saying Fuck You to large chunks of the population ends in one way.
Which is why I support massively increasing training - see Starmer and the NHS - and investment in productivity. And I also support controls on the entry of labour to portions of the UK labour market.
Such controls could have been created inside the EU. But this would have resulted in wage inflation. Which means the nanny and the gardner would have cost more.....
Personally I have always been happy to pay people whatever they want. We had a nanny/babysitter for a while, we paid her well above the London living wage. She was British anyway. The problem now is that sometimes it's hard to find anyone at any price. Perhaps this will resolve itself over time, but what we have seen in the last few years is actually a fall in labour force participation. In an ageing society we are going to see increasing labour shortages. The obvious solution if you don't want immigration of younger workers is to raise the retirement age to 70 or something. But a lot of people are in too poor health by that age to work.
The better solution is increasing mechanisation and other productivity improvements. This, combined with training, moves the labour market to higher paid jobs.
For example, on small domestic French building sites, the first thing they setup is a small crane. In the UK, you see things like 10 guys (literally) walking a 500Kg piece of steel around.
Sure, we can do that too and there are plenty of examples of that happening, eg fast food ordering screens. It's interesting that France has managed to achieve these kinds of productivity improvements while being in the EU single market and Schengen, and thus presumably beset by serfs pulling local wages down to starvation levels. UK productivity has always been poor because UK firms are badly managed and have a poor record of training people. Brexit won't fix that because being in the EU wasn't the cause.
The French ‘efficiency’ exists because the labour laws there make it almost impossible to fire people - so no-one gets hired until everyone else in the business is over-working themselves. The US is the opposite extreme, where in many states hiring and firing takes place ‘at will’.
So Labour protections improve productivity? We should do more of it...
Only if ‘productivity’ is you most important metric - as opposed to, say, economic output. Unemployment in France is much higher than in the UK too, because companies don’t like hiring people.
GDP/capita in USD UK $47,334.36 France $43,518.54
Unemployment Rate UK 3.5% France 7.3%
Productivity stats in the way used by Foxy there are a bit flawed as obviously the unemployed are excluded from the statistics, rather than included but at a productiveness of 0.
The GDP stats present a dilemma, not only because they increasingly seem out of kilter with how rich or poor a country "feels" (not just here and in Western Europe but in other developed countries too) and because the per capita numbers have been going on a wild ride. For example the 2021 figure which you quote above was 15.7% up on 2020 - a little higher than the bounce back in total GDP from Covid hence meaning the population shrank a little. At a guess that is due to a bit of emigration and Covid deaths.
The gap with median household income is a long-running oddity. The figure for the UK in 2021 was $46,691 at PPP. The figure for the same period in France was $61,020. That's a long-established gap. So an average family in France feels significantly better off than an average family in the UK.
Both sets of stats - GDP and median income - are correct. The implication is that the UK median is suppressed vs GDP because of inequality or specifically the very rich at the top end pushing up the GDP per capita number. The gap was actually narrowing up to around 2017 but has been flat since.
Great bit of analysis. Many thanks.
One of the great opportunities for the centre right in this country is to get out of the thrall of unproductive finance capitalism, and figure out how to address this issue. I'd be back on board in a heartbeat.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
That's good to hear.
Must be a recent change.
This from July:
"What if colleagues are Covid-19 positive but feel well enough to work?
If colleagues are unable to attend work because they are Covid positive although feel well enough to work, managers will try to support them to either work from home or by doing different type of work or duties where appropriate. Where this is not possible and colleagues are not able to attend work because of infection control reasons they would be paid as if they are at work. This would be recorded as authorised absence and not sickness absence. As this is authorised absence, it will not count towards the sickness absence triggers."
How would they know, as testing has stopped? I haven't had a test in 6 months or more.
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Should have followed Brazil's lead and gone for 52 strikers.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
Racing - lots of toffs and lots of oiks. Misses out the middle.
Belloc:
The rich arrived in pairs And also in Rolls Royces They talked of their affairs In loud and strident voices.
The poor arrived in Fords Whose features they resembled And laughed to see so many lords And ladies all assembled.
The people in between Looked underdone and harassed And out of place and mean And horribly embarrassed.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches. Edit: She sounds like an ex-colleague of mine who was oh-so-attuned to the feelings of Mother Earth while flying regularly to Bali to hear the preachings of her favourite guru.
Nope, everyone has to make a living. And until she can afford to find somewhere to live up her permanently it is either commute or unemployment. Again, real world stuff rather than the arrogant fantasy that you and Ishmael indulge in.
It also shows why "just stop oil" is a stupid mantra.
Its not possible, viable or desirable to "just stop oil".
What we need to do is transition away from oil, as much as possible (oil will still have chemical especially uses instead of being just burnt in the future).
If lobbyists wanted to talk about ways we could transition faster, ways to remove barriers from people replacing petrol cars with electric ones for instance, then that would be serious. Simply saying "just stop oil" though is grandiose, petulant gibberish that nobody will take seriously.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"Saving the environment" isn't exactly unattainable, but it will need an element of evolution.
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
Physics happens, at a certain point the permafrost will thaw and release such an amount of CO2 and methane that climate change will accelerate dramatically, what would that do to our economy? Getting to net zero and removing some CO2will eventually stop climate change. These things aren't unattainable. You may have heard of COP27, nobody should be talking about unilateral action. Other countries are making changes in the right direction, but they and we all need to do more and quickly. The UK is not the worst regarding Climate Change, but " "None of the countries achieved positions one to three. No country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change." https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/countries-doing-the-most-to-fight-climate-change
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
Routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is still happening in the social care sector, meaning that if 10% of the population have Covid at a time, then ~10% of Social Care staff are at home not working even if asymptomatic.
BTW is anyone else following the war on Google Maps and finding all these cool little shops and cafes they want to visit once they've sorted everything out?
I did find a burger joint in Kyiv that looked worth a visit.
A genuinely lovely city, everyone should visit once this damn war is all over. They’ll welcome your tourist dollars with open arms.
Oh, and last time I was there, even the fancy bars were $2 a beer, the smaller bars outside the centre were often less than $1. Cheers!
Haven’t had the chance to mess around in Ukraine since the noughties. Looking forward to Russia being gone
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Should have followed Brazil's lead and gone for 52 strikers.
Well England's defence is even more wonky than Brazil, especially not willing to pick the English lads that have learned from the Italians about the act of fouling defending.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches. Edit: She sounds like an ex-colleague of mine who was oh-so-attuned to the feelings of Mother Earth while flying regularly to Bali to hear the preachings of her favourite guru.
Nope, everyone has to make a living. And until she can afford to find somewhere to live up her permanently it is either commute or unemployment. Again, real world stuff rather than the arrogant fantasy that you and Ishmael indulge in.
It also shows why "just stop oil" is a stupid mantra.
Its not possible, viable or desirable to "just stop oil".
What we need to do is transition away from oil, as much as possible (oil will still have chemical especially uses instead of being just burnt in the future).
If lobbyists wanted to talk about ways we could transition faster, ways to remove barriers from people replacing petrol cars with electric ones for instance, then that would be serious. Simply saying "just stop oil" though is grandiose, petulant gibberish that nobody will take seriously.
That's a conversation I used to have with myself, substituting "smoking" for "oil."
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
Routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is still happening in the social care sector, meaning that if 10% of the population have Covid at a time, then ~10% of Social Care staff are at home not working even if asymptomatic.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
Routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is still happening in the social care sector, meaning that if 10% of the population have Covid at a time, then ~10% of Social Care staff are at home not working even if asymptomatic.
The prevalence is nowhere near 10%.
Its still high enough that routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is causing a considerable problem in reducing capacity.
If the NHS has stopped routine, asymptomatic testing then that is a good thing, but its still happening in Social Care which is a problem.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
That's good to hear.
Must be a recent change.
This from July:
"What if colleagues are Covid-19 positive but feel well enough to work?
If colleagues are unable to attend work because they are Covid positive although feel well enough to work, managers will try to support them to either work from home or by doing different type of work or duties where appropriate. Where this is not possible and colleagues are not able to attend work because of infection control reasons they would be paid as if they are at work. This would be recorded as authorised absence and not sickness absence. As this is authorised absence, it will not count towards the sickness absence triggers."
How would they know, as testing has stopped? I haven't had a test in 6 months or more.
People are still testing themselves.
Not where I am.
Had a test this morning in the hospital, where I am a patient!
US inflation falling, pressure on sterling easing and equities all surging. Hopefully the BoE will benefit from this and our import inflation falls and we don't need to push rates above 5% as they hope.
A financial website, which I can't remember, was saying that as long as the Republicans took at least one of Senate or House then all Bidens stimulus packages would get blocked. Which should mean the Fed doesn't need to raise rates as far to deal with inflation.
Sounds plausible but can't pretend I'm clever enough to know.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
Racing - lots of toffs and lots of oiks. Misses out the middle.
It's why the middle is so uncomfortable, as portrayed in that scything documentary from John Cleese and the Two Ronnies.
Dukes and dustmen rub along like a house on fire. It's the middle that is confused both "upwards" and "downwards". Not wishing to personalise it, but rather to give a real life example, it's why you are all over the place. By your own fantastic efforts you have been transported into the middle classes but are not entirely sure what (in particular socio-economic) attitudes you should adopt now that you're there.
I'll forgive the cliched, amateur hour psych.
Yes, shades of why "Boris" is liked by a chunk of the working class. Not the whole story, obvs, but I think it's in there.
That Cleese and the Ronnies thing was more a sketch than a "documentary" wasn't it? Unless I've only caught the famous bit and there's lots more.
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
What's a bit depressing is that despite knowing where it all ends for us there's little global momentum to replace fossil fuels as the primary energy source. Germany bulldozing a windfarm to make way for an open cast lignite mine was very telling of what we're facing. This isn't China or India doing it, it's Germany, a nation that is supposed to be cutting emissions and preparing industry for the era of clean electricity rather than coal and oil. If we can't convince Germany to get on board, what hope do we have of convincing China, India, Vietnam and a host of other nations reliant on coal and oil?
Very good inflation figures from the USA with a large drop in October .
What a shame this hadn’t happened a month earlier as this certainly would have helped the Dems to perhaps keep the house .
Now the voters have given the keys to the House to the GOP death cult.
The GOP will be in better shape now that Trump has been sidelined.
You think Trump has been side-lined? In the end Republican primary voters will have to reject him and that seems far from a certainty. Meanwhile the tiny Rep majority in the House will consist of Q-Anon nutters. Who will be ever more vocal and ever more visbile. A Rep House majority massively contributed to Clinton's second victory. I don't see that they have learned many lessons.
Meanwhile Nevada looks ever more Dem. Lose the House by a slim margin but hold the Senate. Just fine for Biden. All future problems will be down to the grandstanding, partisan, Reps in the House.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
Routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is still happening in the social care sector, meaning that if 10% of the population have Covid at a time, then ~10% of Social Care staff are at home not working even if asymptomatic.
The prevalence is nowhere near 10%.
Its still high enough that routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is causing a considerable problem in reducing capacity.
If the NHS has stopped routine, asymptomatic testing then that is a good thing, but its still happening in Social Care which is a problem.
And if the police stopped breathalysing people the effect on the drink driving stats would be electrifying.
US inflation falling, pressure on sterling easing and equities all surging. Hopefully the BoE will benefit from this and our import inflation falls and we don't need to push rates above 5% as they hope.
A financial website, which I can't remember, was saying that as long as the Republicans took at least one of Senate or House then all Bidens stimulus packages would get blocked. Which should mean the Fed doesn't need to raise rates as far to deal with inflation.
Sounds plausible but can't pretend I'm clever enough to know.
Well this is data from October, unless those GOP congresspeople have travelled back in time to block stuff then it's bullshit.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
Racing - lots of toffs and lots of oiks. Misses out the middle.
Belloc:
The rich arrived in pairs And also in Rolls Royces They talked of their affairs In loud and strident voices.
The poor arrived in Fords Whose features they resembled And laughed to see so many lords And ladies all assembled.
The people in between Looked underdone and harassed And out of place and mean And horribly embarrassed.
Belloq:
All your life has been spent in pursuit of archaeological relics. Inside the Ark are treasures beyond your wildest aspirations. You want to see it opened as well as I. Indiana, we are simply passing through history. This, this *is* history.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches. Edit: She sounds like an ex-colleague of mine who was oh-so-attuned to the feelings of Mother Earth while flying regularly to Bali to hear the preachings of her favourite guru.
Nope, everyone has to make a living. And until she can afford to find somewhere to live up her permanently it is either commute or unemployment. Again, real world stuff rather than the arrogant fantasy that you and Ishmael indulge in.
It also shows why "just stop oil" is a stupid mantra.
Its not possible, viable or desirable to "just stop oil".
What we need to do is transition away from oil, as much as possible (oil will still have chemical especially uses instead of being just burnt in the future).
If lobbyists wanted to talk about ways we could transition faster, ways to remove barriers from people replacing petrol cars with electric ones for instance, then that would be serious. Simply saying "just stop oil" though is grandiose, petulant gibberish that nobody will take seriously.
That's a conversation I used to have with myself, substituting "smoking" for "oil."
Then I just stopped smoking.
I mean you categorise my constant reposting of that acute, incisive, and wholly relevant daily mash article as: "Life is very, very pleasant here in Richistan, I don't see what the fuss is about."
Your views on Stop Oil could be construed equally as: "Rich old bloke who has enjoyed life and has plenty, some of which he is willing to forego, tries to kick away the stepladder from those on their way up."
Same for the Global North towards the Global South for that matter.
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Personally, it's a recognition that what I can do is infinitesimal, and even what we can do as a country is insufficient.
That, plus for many things the incentives are all wrong. Next week I need to be in the office in London on Friday and then volunteering at an event in Birmingham on Saturday. Both will pay me HMRC mileage or actual train fare - so financially it would be a no brainer even if it weren't quicker (which it is). Drive to a Heathrow hotel Thursday night, leave the car there and hop the purple train to the West End on Friday morning, back the same way and then drive to the Birmingham Hotel on Friday evening.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches. Edit: She sounds like an ex-colleague of mine who was oh-so-attuned to the feelings of Mother Earth while flying regularly to Bali to hear the preachings of her favourite guru.
Nope, everyone has to make a living. And until she can afford to find somewhere to live up her permanently it is either commute or unemployment. Again, real world stuff rather than the arrogant fantasy that you and Ishmael indulge in.
It also shows why "just stop oil" is a stupid mantra.
Its not possible, viable or desirable to "just stop oil".
What we need to do is transition away from oil, as much as possible (oil will still have chemical especially uses instead of being just burnt in the future).
If lobbyists wanted to talk about ways we could transition faster, ways to remove barriers from people replacing petrol cars with electric ones for instance, then that would be serious. Simply saying "just stop oil" though is grandiose, petulant gibberish that nobody will take seriously.
That's a conversation I used to have with myself, substituting "smoking" for "oil."
Then I just stopped smoking.
I mean you categorise my constant reposting of that acute, incisive, and wholly relevant daily mash article as: "Life is very, very pleasant here in Richistan, I don't see what the fuss is about."
Your views on Stop Oil could be construed equally as: "Rich old bloke who has enjoyed life and has plenty, some of which he is willing to forego, tries to kick away the stepladder from those on their way up."
Same for the Global North towards the Global South for that matter.
And when we can't even get our own house in order with countries like Germany commissioning new open cast coal mines and coal power plants it's even more hypocritical.
I’d we can all agree that a credible target for climate change is 2% and not the impossible 1.5% then I’d argue we have more or less cracked it. The west moving to electric cars will force the world to do the same and the economics are pushing renewables and nuclear. China and India have woken up and taken an interest and, basically, technology and progress will once again save the day. That’s not even allowing for any clever “Hail Mary” technology solutions to extract what is already in the atmosphere in a few decades.
At 2% or 2.5% some countries will really suffer and we should support them and relocate those who lose their islands; but the U.K. is basically just going to gain a wine industry and more fertile farm land.
US inflation falling, pressure on sterling easing and equities all surging. Hopefully the BoE will benefit from this and our import inflation falls and we don't need to push rates above 5% as they hope.
House price crash off! Get on the ladder before a starter home anywhere except Great Yarmouth costs more than Twitter!
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"Saving the environment" isn't exactly unattainable, but it will need an element of evolution.
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
Physics happens, at a certain point the permafrost will thaw and release such an amount of CO2 and methane that climate change will accelerate dramatically, what would that do to our economy? Getting to net zero and removing some CO2will eventually stop climate change. These things aren't unattainable. You may have heard of COP27, nobody should be talking about unilateral action. Other countries are making changes in the right direction, but they and we all need to do more and quickly. The UK is not the worst regarding Climate Change, but " "None of the countries achieved positions one to three. No country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change." https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/countries-doing-the-most-to-fight-climate-change
COP27 like all the previous COP's is an utter waste of time and no more than a free junket for a photo op for politicians. They make a token agreement then all go home and break it. Complete and utter waste of time while pumping ton's of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
Never seen a post more dripping with misplaced snobbery, horse racing had and has a massive following among those, you know, utterly awful working class chaps. Crowd of 500,000 at that Derby; stench must have been overpowering, what? And jockeys are and were working class chaps with no breeding at all working for derisory wages. And I can bloody promise you that falling from a galloping thoroughbred is not a fantasy experience.
Racing - lots of toffs and lots of oiks. Misses out the middle.
Belloc:
The rich arrived in pairs And also in Rolls Royces They talked of their affairs In loud and strident voices.
The poor arrived in Fords Whose features they resembled And laughed to see so many lords And ladies all assembled.
The people in between Looked underdone and harassed And out of place and mean And horribly embarrassed.
Belloc making the same point as Topping here. Who says it best, Belloc or Topping? - probably Belloc, I'd say. Which isn't to disparage our man. We talk it sometimes but we can't all be Bellocs.
Why can't Just Stop Oil be pleased about the fact that more than half of UK energy is regularly produced by renewables? Just a few years ago it was a very small percentage.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches.
Well, quite. I do not think the effect of that anecdote is the one intended by the narrator.
I suspect she'd rather get the train if all things were equal, but they probably aren't.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches. Edit: She sounds like an ex-colleague of mine who was oh-so-attuned to the feelings of Mother Earth while flying regularly to Bali to hear the preachings of her favourite guru.
Nope, everyone has to make a living. And until she can afford to find somewhere to live up here permanently it is either commute or unemployment. Again, real world stuff rather than the arrogant fantasy that you and Ishmael indulge in.
Arrogant fantasy? All I was doing was pointing out the obvious inconsistency of your colleague's words and deeds. If she were really "very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil" then she would make an effort to organise her life accordingly. An integral part of being very strongly green is an acceptance that you may have to inconvenience yourself for the greater good of the planet. She doesn't sound very green at all to me.
I’d we can all agree that a credible target for climate change is 2% and not the impossible 1.5% then I’d argue we have more or less cracked it. The west moving to electric cars will force the world to do the same and the economics are pushing renewables and nuclear. China and India have woken up and taken an interest and, basically, technology and progress will once again save the day. That’s not even allowing for any clever “Hail Mary” technology solutions to extract what is already in the atmosphere in a few decades.
At 2% or 2.5% some countries will really suffer and we should support them and relocate those who lose their islands; but the U.K. is basically just going to gain a wine industry and more fertile farm land.
Especially since its 2C from pre-industrialisation ages, not from here. We're already at 1.2C
If we said 2.5C then we're only talking same again from where we are so far. If we say 2C then that's less than one degree from here. 1.5 just doesn't seem that plausible.
All the effort needs to be on adaptation, but adapting clean technologies to remove emissions, and adapting to climate change that is going to happen whether we want it to or not.
Why can't Just Stop Oil be pleased about the fact that more than half of UK energy is regularly produced by renewables? Just a few years ago it was a very small percentage.
Because, whisper it, most of these people the environment cause isn't the main driver of their protests....they won't be happy until the entire capitalist system has been overthrown and replaced by some sort of Marxist utopia.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
Routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is still happening in the social care sector, meaning that if 10% of the population have Covid at a time, then ~10% of Social Care staff are at home not working even if asymptomatic.
The prevalence is nowhere near 10%.
Its still high enough that routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is causing a considerable problem in reducing capacity.
If the NHS has stopped routine, asymptomatic testing then that is a good thing, but its still happening in Social Care which is a problem.
The government does not recommend asymptomatic testing in Social Care, just if symptomatic, or if there is an outbreak.
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
No beds because we cannot discharge to Social Care. Therefore ED gets backed up, ambulances cannot unload, not available for urgent patients.
It's the cheap boots story applied to the NHS. Because of Social Care malfunctions, best not have a heart attack.
Of course social care sector is doing the same thing as the NHS and putting in restrictions rather than running to capacity due to Covid. Do you think you guys should have Covid restrictions but they shouldn't?
If you want capacity, drop Covid restrictions, or if you want Covid restrictions then learn to operate within your new capacity.
There are no covid restrictions. Mask wearing in patient facing areas, but that is not a restriction. Staff are not tested if asymptomatic, only if symptomatic like any other disease.
So I am not clear what you want us to be rid of. The problems of Social Care are about funding and staffing.
Routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is still happening in the social care sector, meaning that if 10% of the population have Covid at a time, then ~10% of Social Care staff are at home not working even if asymptomatic.
The prevalence is nowhere near 10%.
Its still high enough that routine, asymptomatic testing of staff is causing a considerable problem in reducing capacity.
If the NHS has stopped routine, asymptomatic testing then that is a good thing, but its still happening in Social Care which is a problem.
The government does not recommend asymptomatic testing in Social Care, just if symptomatic, or if there is an outbreak.
I’d we can all agree that a credible target for climate change is 2% and not the impossible 1.5% then I’d argue we have more or less cracked it. The west moving to electric cars will force the world to do the same and the economics are pushing renewables and nuclear. China and India have woken up and taken an interest and, basically, technology and progress will once again save the day. That’s not even allowing for any clever “Hail Mary” technology solutions to extract what is already in the atmosphere in a few decades.
At 2% or 2.5% some countries will really suffer and we should support them and relocate those who lose their islands; but the U.K. is basically just going to gain a wine industry and more fertile farm land.
Especially since its 2C from pre-industrialisation ages, not from here. We're already at 1.2C
If we said 2.5C then we're only talking same again from where we are so far. If we say 2C then that's less than one degree from here. 1.5 just doesn't seem that plausible.
All the effort needs to be on adaptation, but adapting clean technologies to remove emissions, and adapting to climate change that is going to happen whether we want it to or not.
But the "only" clauses in here are ignoring the fact that such numbers could cause big collapses in Antartic ice sheets, releasing huge amounts of methane into the air, accelerating the issue further. Plus the oceans have been absorbing a lot of the CO2 but they can face saturation point.
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Ah, modern football. Only two actual proper strikers, I think? so a lot riding on Kane.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence would be a daft move because there are far more people willing and hoping to do violence to them than they could possibly imagine. All they are looking for is an excuse.
A few martyrs for the cause always works a treat.
‘This year’s Emily Wilding Davison medal goes to Jeremy X, beaten to death by ruddy faced commuters on the North Circular.’
I think you overstate the public opinion of them.
I would think the public was pretty pissed off with EW Davison what with endangering horses and riders and screwing up the race.
I doubt it. Bothering a few toffs following the gee gees doesn't compare with stopping people reaching medical appointments or missing flights and job interviews. You know, real life rather than fantasy.
My colleague missed a flight to New York yesterday because of the protest - in the taxi for 5 hours! (I got the flight as I was taking a different route).
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
And yet for the converse I have an archaeologist staying with me a couple of nights a week at the moment who lives in Kent but teaches at a local college in Lincolnshire. She is a vegan and very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil. She has nothing but scorn for these protestors, not least because she missed all the classes she was supposed to be teaching yesterday because of the M25 delays. As she said, if they are even turning her off the cause then she hates to think what they are doing to the wider public.
Maybe she's just revealing her true colours? If she's that anti-oil, regularly driving back and forth between Kent and Lincolnshire isn't exactly practising as she preaches. Edit: She sounds like an ex-colleague of mine who was oh-so-attuned to the feelings of Mother Earth while flying regularly to Bali to hear the preachings of her favourite guru.
Nope, everyone has to make a living. And until she can afford to find somewhere to live up here permanently it is either commute or unemployment. Again, real world stuff rather than the arrogant fantasy that you and Ishmael indulge in.
Arrogant fantasy? All I was doing was pointing out the obvious inconsistency of your colleague's words and deeds. If she were really "very strongly green in her outlook and anti-oil" then she would make an effort to organise her life accordingly. An integral part of being very strongly green is an acceptance that you may have to inconvenience yourself for the greater good of the planet. She doesn't sound very green at all to me.
We just don't want to do it. I would not criticise Richard's friend because she, you, I and everyone else bar a tiny, tiny minority actually act and even those latter could do more I have no doubt if we were to examine their fossil fuel usage.
So then Emma Thompson. More important that she came to publicise climate change than the fact that she did so flying over from wherever it was to do so. Perhaps. But we're not listening.
(Not to Emma Thompson, we never listen to her, but to the general do less folk.)
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Ah, modern football. Only two actual proper strikers, I think? so a lot riding on Kane.
If 'ary gets injured, its going to be 11 men behind the ball, pray for penalties.
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Ah, modern football. Only two actual proper strikers, I think? so a lot riding on Kane.
If 'ary gets injured, its going to be 11 men behind the ball, pray for penalties.
All I want from this world cup is to not lose to the Welsh.
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Firstly there are big campaigns to convince us global warming is a hoax. There front organisations have been cited here numerous times over the years.
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
You won't get anything by voting because both parties are fully signed up to the environutters' damaging agenda...
No they aren't. We are doing staggeringly little compared to what we could do. In 1970 you could fly London New York return for $500. you still can, when that should have inflated to $5000. If it was me I'd slap a 100% surcharge on all flights to everywhere, just for starters.
But then I am an idiot who doesn't realise this is all a gigantic hoax to enable poor brown third world people to steal all your money.
Well, yes, we could destroy the economy immediately in the pursuit of an unattainable goal, rather than just doing it slowly. Doesn't make much difference in the end.
Translation: there's a lot of BP in my pension and I don't have any children to worry about.
I don't know about my pension in that detail, but I do know that wrecking our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn't any good for our children or grandchildren.
Maybe I'm an incurable optimist or maybe I read too much science, but I hope you're wrong about saving the environment being unattainable. When the cheapest electricity production method is renewables we surely have some hope of reducing our CO2 output before we hit an irreversible tipping point such as one caused by the melting ice or thawing permafrost. Change when it happens can be positive and can happen quickly, in fact it usually does, google the 'S Curve' for details. Say what you like about Elon Musk, he can be an idiot, but he's set us onto the steep part of the S curve as far as electric cars are concerned and we are seeing massive reductions in cost of solar and wind. So, I'm an optimist, but we could do with our politicians waking up and doing more to make us energy independent, let alone doing our bit to save the planet. The young people of the US have turned out to save the States from the lunatic right, maybe they will help the UK at the next election.
"Saving the environment" isn't exactly unattainable, but it will need an element of evolution.
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
Physics happens, at a certain point the permafrost will thaw and release such an amount of CO2 and methane that climate change will accelerate dramatically, what would that do to our economy? Getting to net zero and removing some CO2will eventually stop climate change. These things aren't unattainable. You may have heard of COP27, nobody should be talking about unilateral action. Other countries are making changes in the right direction, but they and we all need to do more and quickly. The UK is not the worst regarding Climate Change, but " "None of the countries achieved positions one to three. No country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change." https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/countries-doing-the-most-to-fight-climate-change
Stopping climate change is a scientific impossibility.
As for the last bit? The ecoloons are never going to accept that any country - especially not their own - is "doing enough".
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Ah, modern football. Only two actual proper strikers, I think? so a lot riding on Kane.
If 'ary gets injured, its going to be 11 men behind the ball, pray for penalties.
All I want from this world cup is to not lose to the Welsh.
Well Wales are relying on an totally unfit player who doesn't even like football, thus spends more time on the golf course than in his football boots....
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Ah, modern football. Only two actual proper strikers, I think? so a lot riding on Kane.
If 'ary gets injured, its going to be 11 men behind the ball, pray for penalties.
You really are the most miserable, pessimistic doom-monger when it comes to any English national team. It's pretty drab fare Francis.
It is literally 2 highs-school students. Nothing on their methodology except that they allegedly cold call people (which given known response rates means that these dudes have made tens of thousands of cold calls).
And 538 just puts them in there. Just like that. And they get to put "Recognized by FiveThirtyEight." in their Twitter profile.
Nate Silver does not understand the reputational asymmetry of what is going on here.
Sometimes less can be more, as in quality over quantity.
I’m confident the more we filtered out the more untrusted polls from spreadsheet, leaving the more experienced and trusted pollsters in this election, the more the picture changed, and I used that method on Sunday, in about an hour on my iPad, to call these midterms spot on (unless Dems take all three and steal the house I’ll be out by one seat which will irritate me). I do same thing all the time with UK polling, to get in the firms heads to the point of guessing there scores right before they release the poll, it requires set days for their next poll to guess it on trend and trusting them to work hard and stick to rules to try and be honest accurate as possible.
In US election there was definitely a drop off in polls from experienced trusted pollsters. Ideally you want a sequence from them in a race, not just one, or old ones.
There’s Silver perhaps unwisely thinking more can only be good, so schoolboy error - and then there’s the actual schoolboys themselves whose main reason for their efforts maybe to help the patriot candidates win. Perhaps. It needs more than assumptions it needs proper investigation, and perhaps some action to protect democracy itself.
Not just pundits and politics using polls, political bettors can have their vision clouded by junk obscuring the value. But worse than that, you don’t turn out to vote because the polls say your candidate so far behind there’s no point, it’s not necessarily anti democratic voter suppression if the poll is carried out professionally to set of rules to ensure accuracy and honesty - however the alternative to getting this right is aiding and abetting fascism.
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Ah, modern football. Only two actual proper strikers, I think? so a lot riding on Kane.
Is that so unusual? In a modern 4-3-3, you have two wide forwards and one #9. In a modern 4-2-3-1, you have two inside forwards, a #10 and one #9. In an old fashioned 4-4-2, you have a #10 and... one #9. Back in Alan Shearer's day we would only have 2-3 outright strikers in a squad, same as today.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton) Nick Pope (Newcastle), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal).
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
Ah, modern football. Only two actual proper strikers, I think? so a lot riding on Kane.
If 'ary gets injured, its going to be 11 men behind the ball, pray for penalties.
You really are the most miserable, pessimistic doom-monger when it comes to any English national team. It's pretty drab fare Francis.
Have you watched them play, its miserable, drab fare.....
Also, was I right, or was I right about the Euros? I explained at the time they were playing a very negative cautious style and why. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same again at the WC, for the same reasons as the Euros. Maguire will have to play, who isn't fast enough (and has no form), and the rest of the defence will be patched up. Southgate doesn't trust Rice to play the way he does for West Ham, so he will sit in, and combine him with Henderson (or a Bellingham with again a much more cautious role) to again shield the defence.
So it will be left for one of Foden / Sterling / Saka to try and create some magic to feed Kane.
Comments
"Stopping climate change" is unattainable.
"Slowing climate change" is unattainable by unilateral action, and any action the UK could take is going to be outweighed by what other countries are doign unless they change.
Of which there have been many examples over the last 24 hours.
One thing that's definitely happening is that the cadres' attitude towards the actual real "public" is hardening - and from what was already a hard position given the castes they come from. (This is Britain after all.) Another thing is they're getting more skilled at recruitment for mounting shall we say hairy ops.
I'm by no means opposed to a hardening of attitude towards "the public" in all circumstances, but this is happening in this particular circumstance and these outfits all track back to Steinerism if you look carefully enough. Steinerites believe in epochal change by catastrophe. I shudder to think what comes next. People may soon start to be killed. And in no cult whatsoever are the beliefs in a narrow tier near the top identical to the beliefs even in the next tier down.
1. I am now pretty convinced Biden will run and will get the nomination. If he had been given a shellacking, he would have found it harder to present himself as the unity candidate. If he stands down he opens the field and the risk will be a Democratic bloodletting/nominating a “feel good” candidate who won’t go down well with the country at large. Better to be a bed blocker than risk the new inhabitant of the bed burning everything down.
2. The general outlook for the GOP is as follows: if Trump is the nominee, Biden should be favourite to win. If DeSantis is the nominee, he should be the favourite to win against Biden.
https://www.flightradar24.com/SHF576/2e297c79
Seems to becoming a common flight route. And its upsetting the cat.
https://twitter.com/bobbymcdonagh1/status/1590609602999353344
What would it look like?
Outages (both of specific functionality and of the entire thing) would be increasingly more likely and common as we go forwards, unless he's very lucky (or has somehow identified the specific engineers that he most needs). Getting those back will be increasingly harder. Things going weirdly wrong would start to happen (replies going to the wrong people, or DMs being exposed - that sort of thing).
A sudden catastrophic crash would be less likely (although not impossible - I don't know the specifics of how Twitter is engineered), but snowballing degradation of the capability until it has effectively gone.
That, for me, is the main risk for Twitter. Could well be wrong, but that's where my alarm bells would be ringing.
Interestingly though he seemed to be most irritated by the over talkative taxi driver who didn't shut up for the whole journey, and he reflected that "maybe someone's trying to tell me something about the sustainability of taking intercontinental flights". [reader, he took the later plane to JFK].
This is not, I promise, one of those made up "and everyone on the train clapped" moments. The effect is perhaps to pull on the conscience of people who are already green-inclined but a little complacent.
Van Gogh soup girl arrested on M25
Let's not forget that the person coming out of this worst, is Braverman. All part of God's plan.
"Research" can be a globby concept if one doesn't get a tight hold on it. "Research" in the sense that many use the term, certainly in the sense in which it has been used in this thread, essentially started with DuPont in the USA in the 1910s and 1920s. (Anyone who is surprised by this statement should check it out.) The idea that it goes back to Francis Bacon or for that matter to the beginnings of "universities" in Bologna, Paris, Oxford, and Cambridge is, well, a bit twerpish. Ideas in history just don't work like that.
Incidentally the PhD system in many fields in Britain is close to breaking the bottom of the barrel, infused as it is with "produce the researcher, not the research", i.e. join the team, do what you're told, use whatever creativity you have left to think for the boss and for your pocket. Contemptible. "We hire PhD students with potential to bring in research money to the department" is a typical approach.
A useful antidote to the 'one size fits all response to events' view so prevalent on here.
"You can get more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word."
500,000 is over 1% of the population of the UK at the relevant time.
My comment was about the likely reaction of the public at the time, not of an hypothetical 1913 me. I have, for the record, zero interest in or knowledge of flat racing.
What a shame this hadn’t happened a month earlier as this certainly would have helped the Dems to perhaps keep the house .
Now the voters have given the keys to the House to the GOP death cult.
However, at the last election, both Conservatives were defeated by independents with green support. One of them has now resigned, and the candidates are Conservative Labour and independent. We have seen nothing from the Conservatives, but have had literature from both Labour and the independent.
I wonder what will happen. This is in Priti Patel’s constituency!
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
"Circumcisions, tummy tucks and liposuction are among 13 operations which will stop being funded by the NHS in a 'crackdown' on wasteful spending in a bid to save £2bn a year"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11410577/Circumcisions-tummy-tucks-liposuction-operations-stop-funded-NHS.html
Dukes and dustmen rub along like a house on fire. It's the middle that is confused both "upwards" and "downwards". Not wishing to personalise it, but rather to give a real life example, it's why you are all over the place. By your own fantastic efforts you have been transported into the middle classes but are not entirely sure what (in particular socio-economic) attitudes you should adopt now that you're there.
Defenders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Coady (on loan at Everton from Wolves), Eric Dier (Tottenham), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City) Ben White (Arsenal).
Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Manchester City), Declan Rice (West Ham), James Maddison (Leicester City), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher.
Forwards: Marcus Rashford (Man United), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Raheem Sterling (Chelsea), Callum Wilson (Newcastle).
The rich arrived in pairs
And also in Rolls Royces
They talked of their affairs
In loud and strident voices.
The poor arrived in Fords
Whose features they resembled
And laughed to see so many lords
And ladies all assembled.
The people in between
Looked underdone and harassed
And out of place and mean
And horribly embarrassed.
And then an hour for every gallon of hydrocarbons wasted in queuing traffic.
They will leave jail old - and unable go climb a gantry.
Its not possible, viable or desirable to "just stop oil".
What we need to do is transition away from oil, as much as possible (oil will still have chemical especially uses instead of being just burnt in the future).
If lobbyists wanted to talk about ways we could transition faster, ways to remove barriers from people replacing petrol cars with electric ones for instance, then that would be serious. Simply saying "just stop oil" though is grandiose, petulant gibberish that nobody will take seriously.
Other countries are making changes in the right direction, but they and we all need to do more and quickly.
The UK is not the worst regarding Climate Change, but " "None of the countries achieved positions one to three. No country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change."
https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/countries-doing-the-most-to-fight-climate-change
foulingdefending.Then I just stopped smoking.
If the NHS has stopped routine, asymptomatic testing then that is a good thing, but its still happening in Social Care which is a problem.
Sounds plausible but can't pretend I'm clever enough to know.
Yes, shades of why "Boris" is liked by a chunk of the working class. Not the whole story, obvs, but I think it's in there.
That Cleese and the Ronnies thing was more a sketch than a "documentary" wasn't it? Unless I've only caught the famous bit and there's lots more.
"This time will be different" is most unlikely to be true.
Meanwhile Nevada looks ever more Dem. Lose the House by a slim margin but hold the Senate. Just fine for Biden. All future problems will be down to the grandstanding, partisan, Reps in the House.
All your life has been spent in pursuit of archaeological relics. Inside the Ark are treasures beyond your wildest aspirations. You want to see it opened as well as I. Indiana, we are simply passing through history. This, this *is* history.
Your views on Stop Oil could be construed equally as: "Rich old bloke who has enjoyed life and has plenty, some of which he is willing to forego, tries to kick away the stepladder from those on their way up."
Same for the Global North towards the Global South for that matter.
That, plus for many things the incentives are all wrong. Next week I need to be in the office in London on Friday and then volunteering at an event in Birmingham on Saturday. Both will pay me HMRC mileage or actual train fare - so financially it would be a no brainer even if it weren't quicker (which it is). Drive to a Heathrow hotel Thursday night, leave the car there and hop the purple train to the West End on Friday morning, back the same way and then drive to the Birmingham Hotel on Friday evening.
At 2% or 2.5% some countries will really suffer and we should support them and relocate those who lose their islands; but the U.K. is basically just going to gain a wine industry and more fertile farm land.
Example germany attended COP26 signed up to it all then do this
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Germany-Is-Dismantling-A-Wind-Farm-To-Make-Way-For-A-Coal-Mine.html
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
If we said 2.5C then we're only talking same again from where we are so far. If we say 2C then that's less than one degree from here. 1.5 just doesn't seem that plausible.
All the effort needs to be on adaptation, but adapting clean technologies to remove emissions, and adapting to climate change that is going to happen whether we want it to or not.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-for-adult-social-care-settings/covid-19-testing-in-adult-social-care
So then Emma Thompson. More important that she came to publicise climate change than the fact that she did so flying over from wherever it was to do so. Perhaps. But we're not listening.
(Not to Emma Thompson, we never listen to her, but to the general do less folk.)
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
As for the last bit? The ecoloons are never going to accept that any country - especially not their own - is "doing enough".
I’m confident the more we filtered out the more untrusted polls from spreadsheet, leaving the more experienced and trusted pollsters in this election, the more the picture changed, and I used that method on Sunday, in about an hour on my iPad, to call these midterms spot on (unless Dems take all three and steal the house I’ll be out by one seat which will irritate me). I do same thing all the time with UK polling, to get in the firms heads to the point of guessing there scores right before they release the poll, it requires set days for their next poll to guess it on trend and trusting them to work hard and stick to rules to try and be honest accurate as possible.
In US election there was definitely a drop off in polls from experienced trusted pollsters. Ideally you want a sequence from them in a race, not just one, or old ones.
There’s Silver perhaps unwisely thinking more can only be good, so schoolboy error - and then there’s the actual schoolboys themselves whose main reason for their efforts maybe to help the patriot candidates win. Perhaps. It needs more than assumptions it needs proper investigation, and perhaps some action to protect democracy itself.
Not just pundits and politics using polls, political bettors can have their vision clouded by junk obscuring the value. But worse than that, you don’t turn out to vote because the polls say your candidate so far behind there’s no point, it’s not necessarily anti democratic voter suppression if the poll is carried out professionally to set of rules to ensure accuracy and honesty - however the alternative to getting this right is aiding and abetting fascism.
Arizona
Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada
Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Also, was I right, or was I right about the Euros? I explained at the time they were playing a very negative cautious style and why. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same again at the WC, for the same reasons as the Euros. Maguire will have to play, who isn't fast enough (and has no form), and the rest of the defence will be patched up. Southgate doesn't trust Rice to play the way he does for West Ham, so he will sit in, and combine him with Henderson (or a Bellingham with again a much more cautious role) to again shield the defence.
So it will be left for one of Foden / Sterling / Saka to try and create some magic to feed Kane.