I wonder if there will be a betting market on next year's Ukrainian Presidential Election. Klitschko might run as controlled opposition to Zelensky. Although that could turn from controlled to actual opposition as they fucking despise each other.
Poroshenko will definitely be back in the fray (probably backed by Russian money).
Zelensky will win, by the sort of landslide only usually seen when Russians count the votes.
“Hey guys, using the term ‘cultural Marxiism’ makes us sound like deranged, antisemitic dicks. How about ‘cultural socialism’?”
New term for "woke" or do they just mean "under the influence of being young"?
If the latter it's hard to see the remedy.
I think it's just a reflection of how hard it is nowadays to find a self-proclaimed socialist who actually cares about workers owning their means of production. "Socialism" seems to have transmogrified into a catch-all for whatever left-wing social policies are currently in vogue.
No doubt the same people believe anyone who lives in London is a capitalist, and seance goers are communists.
Well that's the Telegraph for you. Not the most rigorous of organs these days.
It's like "rock, paper, scissors". Biden beats Trump, Trump beats not-Biden, not-Biden beats De Santis, De Santis beats Biden.
Nice construct but I don't agree. I have something more pure and distilled:
Any Dem* is 50/50 against DeSantis. Any Dem* beats Trump.
* within reason.
Hence why I think the Dems are value @ 2.4.
Yes, I think Trump loses to almost any Dem.
It's worth noting how narrow his victory path was in 2016, probably only a 10% shot, and that was against a truly diabolical Dem candidate.
It's probably sub 5% to happen again.
Not sure if H. Clinton was any worse a candidate than Biden, and while neither are great candidates, neither seem truly diabolical.
Biden outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin over Republicans in 2020 by 1.4%. Clinton outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin in 2016 by 3.2%.
I'm sure there are reasons why this is an overly-simplistic analysis, but if Clinton was really a much worse candidate than Biden, you'd expect her to do worse compared to her party nationally than Biden did, rather than better.
The main reason why this is overly simplistic is that POTUS isn't elected by popular vote. Clinton spent too long campaigning in the wrong places.
So the main reason Clinton was "truly diabolical" because she spent too long campaigning in the wrong places? Seems a bit strong.
And if you look at the figures, Biden didn't improve the Dem margin in the Midwest (for example) by more than he improved it nationally, so I still think it probably doesn't stack up (though I haven't looked at the figures in detail).
Well, there were other things too. "Basket of deplorables", for a start, plus the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman and not being Trump, plus some entitled sense of it being her turn.
“Hey guys, using the term ‘cultural Marxiism’ makes us sound like deranged, antisemitic dicks. How about ‘cultural socialism’?”
New term for "woke" or do they just mean "under the influence of being young"?
If the latter it's hard to see the remedy.
This stuff is nuts. If young people are left wing it's because the fundamentals - things like property ownership, climate change and Brexit - are pushing them that way. And in all seriousness, is there anything at all that the right has done recently to try to appeal to them? Anything? Or has the right simply played to their elderly base with socialism for pensioners and scorched earth Thatcherism for anyone under 40? Blaming "school indoctrination" when central government has greater control over the curriculum than at any time in history and the Tories have been in charge of it for the last decade is pure bollocks. If you want young people to be more right-wing, then change right-wing politics so it means something other than fuck the young.
David Cameron and Osborne did more for the young in six years than Blair and Brown did in 13.
The explosion in BTL and the explosion in house price to earnings ratios happened under Blair and Brown.
Cameron and Osborne introduced BTL taxes and liberated [by not enough to be fair] the planning system to encourage more building and had schemes like Help to Buy introduced to help the young onto the property ladder despite the damage Blair and Brown inflicted.
As a result young people being able to get their own home troughed after Blair and Brown and has been recovering a bit in recent years though much more still should be done of course.
Unfortunately the Tories don't seem to be doing anything much recently and Labour don't seem to be willing to turn their backs on the damage that Blair and Brown inflicted on the young.
Astonishing opening sentence. Totally deserves that presentation as a para by itself. Wooee.
Labour should move Britain closer to the EU by granting ministers the power to copy EU rules, Tony Blair’s think tank has said.
The institute set up by the former prime minister said the UK must mirror Brussels standards to rebuild trade ties with the continent.
Tory MPs warned the plan would be a betrayal of Brexit and see the country effectively taken back into the single market by stealth.
Under the proposals, Britain would dynamically align with EU rules covering swathes of the economy, most notably food production.
Ministers would be given “keeping pace” powers to update the UK statute books and take account of new laws made in Brussels. Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them.
"The Pentagon is considering a Boeing proposal to supply Ukraine with [the 150 km range] Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) ... It combines the GBU-39 SDB with the M26 rocket motor ... GLSDB could be delivered as early as spring 2023." https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyPlopsky/status/1597162415405531136
Uses stockpiled components, so plenty available, and they are cheap.
For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.
There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.
You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).
All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.
I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.
It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )
I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough
Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.
You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."
My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.
"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.
You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days
I am answered. Thank you. I never considered that as how it happened.
It’s all falling apart I’m afraid. One of the main scientists who has been pushing the wet market hypothesis for three years - she’s in those emails - has finally backtracked. Remember, she’s been claiming that “lab leak is debunked” all this time.
Her then:
Her now:
You don't get it.
I can be argued around to lab leak. Just get the key questions answered. I don't care about "he said, she said, he said." I don't care that over eighteen days of discussion, people came around from believing it plausible to seeing it as implausible (albeit those eighteen days of discussion might provide a clue as to why). Any more than I care that Isaac Newton was an arsehole who was a twat to Hooke, who insisted Leibniz stole his calculus (when Leibniz obviously came up with it first), and who firmly believed in alchemy, turning base metals into gold, and the like: his Laws of Motion either work or do not work (and they work).
My big issue is the one I've outlined, and all the "he said this at this point and that at that point," or "She was present when it was said to be debunked and has recently said simply she doesn't see that the evidence weighs in favour of it."
None of that answers the question or questions. If they're plausibly answered, then you can get me around.
Farrar didn’t change his mind. He made a ridiculous double back body flip from “50/50” to “conspiracy theory”. You’re too smart not to see the insanity of this
Or maybe you aren’t that smart, and you’re just good with numbers
But I do not wish to be unkind and you’ve been a great source on Covid, and I’ll ascribe your myopia to wilful naivety with good intentions. You like science and scientists and hate the idea they might have caused a pandemic so it’s clouding your judgement. Hey Ho
Now I must get to my flints. Good day
You are ascribing characteristics to Andy that you have no idea that he has and slightly insulting ones at that. Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population (although it happens obviously). It seems to me he would just prefer to see some facts and not nonsense stuff like he describes as 'he said, she said, he said' which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracies.
How about trying not to do this stuff and present evidence.
I have no idea which source is correct, but my judgement IS often clouded when I see stuff like 'he said, she said' from someone who often comes out with conspiracies.
Yeah, I just want to know what the facts are. Not what he said-she-said or whatever.
My stance was:
- Starting point: All the millions of viruses throughout history (MERS, SARS, HKU1, Ebola, Rabies, Lassa, smallpox and other poxes, various influenzas, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, rotavirus, etc, etc, etc) have come through zoonosis. So it's a very well established channel and, as this is the way it's happened literally every time before, the default will be to look at this. - However: There was a virus research lab very close to where this one sparked off. Covering similar viruses. It's therefore natural to think: maybe they're linked? Bioengineering? Accidental leak?
So my starting point was that both were plausible.
There was a flurry of articles and points that purported to point to an artificial origin. The furin cleavage site was the biggest such. Later on, claims of finding "fingerprints" in it. However, the FCS turned out to be not at all a smoking gun (given that many coronaviruses have them, it could even be that when you see a coronavirus in humans, if it's evolved an FCS, it helps it to make the jump. Like with MERS, HKU1, and now SARS-CoV-2). And the "fingerprints" one fell apart rapidly.
The bit that's really pushed me away from lab leak and towards zoonosis (at the moment!) is the tracing of the spark. The fact that there are two separate strains (A and B ) and both sparked separately at the wet market and nowhere else means that it looks even more implausible a coincidence that it could be a lab leak. Which is some going (given that it's a big coincidence, in my mind, for it to happen close to such a lab). So that's my big holdup: how the hell did a random leak happen ONLY to the wet market and none of the other superspreader sites in Wuhan? I could see it happening once as sheer luck/coincidence, and more or less balance out the coincidence needed on the other argument.
But twice? Independently and separated by a fortnight?
And that's why I keep coming back to that question.
Some disposal worker at the lab making a little extra money on the side selling on bats to the market would fit the pattern. Two separate strains making the jump from the bats to humans from the wild is just as much of a huge coincidence
But that happens all the time with zoonotic origins. If you have an animal reservoir and a pipeline from it, you're going to get similar mutations within the animal reservoir (we have a huge animal reservoir in humans and loads of mutations of the virus within that and many introductions from that human reservoir).
As before, both SARS and MERS had multiple zoonotic introductions.
Yes over time, I only mentioned the coincidence as you brought it up over lab leak. I was suggesting a way that would explain how lab leak could work and show the same symptoms as you described is all.
Which is more likely? Frankly doubt we will ever know. I certainly don't trust any evidence that has been "collected" by either the chinese goverment nor the scientists like Daczak and Fauci who were heavily involved in the Wuhan lab.
For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.
There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.
You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).
All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.
I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.
It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )
I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough
Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.
You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."
My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.
"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.
You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days
I am answered. Thank you. I never considered that as how it happened.
It’s all falling apart I’m afraid. One of the main scientists who has been pushing the wet market hypothesis for three years - she’s in those emails - has finally backtracked. Remember, she’s been claiming that “lab leak is debunked” all this time.
Her then:
Her now:
You don't get it.
I can be argued around to lab leak. Just get the key questions answered. I don't care about "he said, she said, he said." I don't care that over eighteen days of discussion, people came around from believing it plausible to seeing it as implausible (albeit those eighteen days of discussion might provide a clue as to why). Any more than I care that Isaac Newton was an arsehole who was a twat to Hooke, who insisted Leibniz stole his calculus (when Leibniz obviously came up with it first), and who firmly believed in alchemy, turning base metals into gold, and the like: his Laws of Motion either work or do not work (and they work).
My big issue is the one I've outlined, and all the "he said this at this point and that at that point," or "She was present when it was said to be debunked and has recently said simply she doesn't see that the evidence weighs in favour of it."
None of that answers the question or questions. If they're plausibly answered, then you can get me around.
Farrar didn’t change his mind. He made a ridiculous double back body flip from “50/50” to “conspiracy theory”. You’re too smart not to see the insanity of this
Or maybe you aren’t that smart, and you’re just good with numbers
But I do not wish to be unkind and you’ve been a great source on Covid, and I’ll ascribe your myopia to wilful naivety with good intentions. You like science and scientists and hate the idea they might have caused a pandemic so it’s clouding your judgement. Hey Ho
Now I must get to my flints. Good day
You are ascribing characteristics to Andy that you have no idea that he has and slightly insulting ones at that. Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population (although it happens obviously). It seems to me he would just prefer to see some facts and not nonsense stuff like he describes as 'he said, she said, he said' which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracies.
How about trying not to do this stuff and present evidence.
I have no idea which source is correct, but my judgement IS often clouded when I see stuff like 'he said, she said' from someone who often comes out with conspiracies.
Yeah, I just want to know what the facts are. Not what he said-she-said or whatever.
My stance was:
- Starting point: All the millions of viruses throughout history (MERS, SARS, HKU1, Ebola, Rabies, Lassa, smallpox and other poxes, various influenzas, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, rotavirus, etc, etc, etc) have come through zoonosis. So it's a very well established channel and, as this is the way it's happened literally every time before, the default will be to look at this. - However: There was a virus research lab very close to where this one sparked off. Covering similar viruses. It's therefore natural to think: maybe they're linked? Bioengineering? Accidental leak?
So my starting point was that both were plausible.
There was a flurry of articles and points that purported to point to an artificial origin. The furin cleavage site was the biggest such. Later on, claims of finding "fingerprints" in it. However, the FCS turned out to be not at all a smoking gun (given that many coronaviruses have them, it could even be that when you see a coronavirus in humans, if it's evolved an FCS, it helps it to make the jump. Like with MERS, HKU1, and now SARS-CoV-2). And the "fingerprints" one fell apart rapidly.
The bit that's really pushed me away from lab leak and towards zoonosis (at the moment!) is the tracing of the spark. The fact that there are two separate strains (A and B ) and both sparked separately at the wet market and nowhere else means that it looks even more implausible a coincidence that it could be a lab leak. Which is some going (given that it's a big coincidence, in my mind, for it to happen close to such a lab). So that's my big holdup: how the hell did a random leak happen ONLY to the wet market and none of the other superspreader sites in Wuhan? I could see it happening once as sheer luck/coincidence, and more or less balance out the coincidence needed on the other argument.
But twice? Independently and separated by a fortnight?
And that's why I keep coming back to that question.
Some disposal worker at the lab making a little extra money on the side selling on bats to the market would fit the pattern. Two separate strains making the jump from the bats to humans from the wild is just as much of a huge coincidence
Of course it's not. The lab theory would require the mutation to occur in a very short time and for two animals with different variants to be sold to the market by the same "disposal worker". The zoonotic theory would allow the mutation to have occurred at any time, and two animals with different variants to reach the market from different sources.
For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.
There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.
You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).
All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.
I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.
It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )
I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough
Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.
You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."
My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.
"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.
You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days
I am answered. Thank you. I never considered that as how it happened.
It’s all falling apart I’m afraid. One of the main scientists who has been pushing the wet market hypothesis for three years - she’s in those emails - has finally backtracked. Remember, she’s been claiming that “lab leak is debunked” all this time.
Her then:
Her now:
You don't get it.
I can be argued around to lab leak. Just get the key questions answered. I don't care about "he said, she said, he said." I don't care that over eighteen days of discussion, people came around from believing it plausible to seeing it as implausible (albeit those eighteen days of discussion might provide a clue as to why). Any more than I care that Isaac Newton was an arsehole who was a twat to Hooke, who insisted Leibniz stole his calculus (when Leibniz obviously came up with it first), and who firmly believed in alchemy, turning base metals into gold, and the like: his Laws of Motion either work or do not work (and they work).
My big issue is the one I've outlined, and all the "he said this at this point and that at that point," or "She was present when it was said to be debunked and has recently said simply she doesn't see that the evidence weighs in favour of it."
None of that answers the question or questions. If they're plausibly answered, then you can get me around.
Farrar didn’t change his mind. He made a ridiculous double back body flip from “50/50” to “conspiracy theory”. You’re too smart not to see the insanity of this
Or maybe you aren’t that smart, and you’re just good with numbers
But I do not wish to be unkind and you’ve been a great source on Covid, and I’ll ascribe your myopia to wilful naivety with good intentions. You like science and scientists and hate the idea they might have caused a pandemic so it’s clouding your judgement. Hey Ho
Now I must get to my flints. Good day
You are ascribing characteristics to Andy that you have no idea that he has and slightly insulting ones at that. Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population (although it happens obviously). It seems to me he would just prefer to see some facts and not nonsense stuff like he describes as 'he said, she said, he said' which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracies.
How about trying not to do this stuff and present evidence.
I have no idea which source is correct, but my judgement IS often clouded when I see stuff like 'he said, she said' from someone who often comes out with conspiracies.
Yeah, I just want to know what the facts are. Not what he said-she-said or whatever.
My stance was:
- Starting point: All the millions of viruses throughout history (MERS, SARS, HKU1, Ebola, Rabies, Lassa, smallpox and other poxes, various influenzas, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, rotavirus, etc, etc, etc) have come through zoonosis. So it's a very well established channel and, as this is the way it's happened literally every time before, the default will be to look at this. - However: There was a virus research lab very close to where this one sparked off. Covering similar viruses. It's therefore natural to think: maybe they're linked? Bioengineering? Accidental leak?
So my starting point was that both were plausible.
There was a flurry of articles and points that purported to point to an artificial origin. The furin cleavage site was the biggest such. Later on, claims of finding "fingerprints" in it. However, the FCS turned out to be not at all a smoking gun (given that many coronaviruses have them, it could even be that when you see a coronavirus in humans, if it's evolved an FCS, it helps it to make the jump. Like with MERS, HKU1, and now SARS-CoV-2). And the "fingerprints" one fell apart rapidly.
The bit that's really pushed me away from lab leak and towards zoonosis (at the moment!) is the tracing of the spark. The fact that there are two separate strains (A and B ) and both sparked separately at the wet market and nowhere else means that it looks even more implausible a coincidence that it could be a lab leak. Which is some going (given that it's a big coincidence, in my mind, for it to happen close to such a lab). So that's my big holdup: how the hell did a random leak happen ONLY to the wet market and none of the other superspreader sites in Wuhan? I could see it happening once as sheer luck/coincidence, and more or less balance out the coincidence needed on the other argument.
But twice? Independently and separated by a fortnight?
And that's why I keep coming back to that question.
Some disposal worker at the lab making a little extra money on the side selling on bats to the market would fit the pattern. Two separate strains making the jump from the bats to humans from the wild is just as much of a huge coincidence
Of course it's not. The lab theory would require the mutation to occur in a very short time and for two animals with different variants to be sold to the market by the same "disposal worker". The zoonotic theory would allow the mutation to have occurred at any time, and two animals with different variants to reach the market from different sources.
You know labs work on several different strains simultaneously I take it as they don't know in advance which strain will be the one they want. I would imagine the wuhan lab houses hundreds of strains of Covid. So think that makes your argument a little null and void
It's like "rock, paper, scissors". Biden beats Trump, Trump beats not-Biden, not-Biden beats De Santis, De Santis beats Biden.
Nice construct but I don't agree. I have something more pure and distilled:
Any Dem* is 50/50 against DeSantis. Any Dem* beats Trump.
* within reason.
Hence why I think the Dems are value @ 2.4.
Yes, I think Trump loses to almost any Dem.
It's worth noting how narrow his victory path was in 2016, probably only a 10% shot, and that was against a truly diabolical Dem candidate.
It's probably sub 5% to happen again.
Not sure if H. Clinton was any worse a candidate than Biden, and while neither are great candidates, neither seem truly diabolical.
Biden outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin over Republicans in 2020 by 1.4%. Clinton outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin in 2016 by 3.2%.
I'm sure there are reasons why this is an overly-simplistic analysis, but if Clinton was really a much worse candidate than Biden, you'd expect her to do worse compared to her party nationally than Biden did, rather than better.
The main reason why this is overly simplistic is that POTUS isn't elected by popular vote. Clinton spent too long campaigning in the wrong places.
So the main reason Clinton was "truly diabolical" because she spent too long campaigning in the wrong places? Seems a bit strong.
And if you look at the figures, Biden didn't improve the Dem margin in the Midwest (for example) by more than he improved it nationally, so I still think it probably doesn't stack up (though I haven't looked at the figures in detail).
Well, there were other things too. "Basket of deplorables", for a start, plus the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman and not being Trump, plus some entitled sense of it being her turn.
It's like "rock, paper, scissors". Biden beats Trump, Trump beats not-Biden, not-Biden beats De Santis, De Santis beats Biden.
Nice construct but I don't agree. I have something more pure and distilled:
Any Dem* is 50/50 against DeSantis. Any Dem* beats Trump.
* within reason.
Hence why I think the Dems are value @ 2.4.
Yes, I think Trump loses to almost any Dem.
It's worth noting how narrow his victory path was in 2016, probably only a 10% shot, and that was against a truly diabolical Dem candidate.
It's probably sub 5% to happen again.
Not sure if H. Clinton was any worse a candidate than Biden, and while neither are great candidates, neither seem truly diabolical.
Biden outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin over Republicans in 2020 by 1.4%. Clinton outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin in 2016 by 3.2%.
I'm sure there are reasons why this is an overly-simplistic analysis, but if Clinton was really a much worse candidate than Biden, you'd expect her to do worse compared to her party nationally than Biden did, rather than better.
The main reason why this is overly simplistic is that POTUS isn't elected by popular vote. Clinton spent too long campaigning in the wrong places.
So the main reason Clinton was "truly diabolical" because she spent too long campaigning in the wrong places? Seems a bit strong.
And if you look at the figures, Biden didn't improve the Dem margin in the Midwest (for example) by more than he improved it nationally, so I still think it probably doesn't stack up (though I haven't looked at the figures in detail).
Well, there were other things too. "Basket of deplorables", for a start, plus the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman and not being Trump, plus some entitled sense of it being her turn.
It's like "rock, paper, scissors". Biden beats Trump, Trump beats not-Biden, not-Biden beats De Santis, De Santis beats Biden.
Nice construct but I don't agree. I have something more pure and distilled:
Any Dem* is 50/50 against DeSantis. Any Dem* beats Trump.
* within reason.
Hence why I think the Dems are value @ 2.4.
Yes, I think Trump loses to almost any Dem.
It's worth noting how narrow his victory path was in 2016, probably only a 10% shot, and that was against a truly diabolical Dem candidate.
It's probably sub 5% to happen again.
Not sure if H. Clinton was any worse a candidate than Biden, and while neither are great candidates, neither seem truly diabolical.
Biden outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin over Republicans in 2020 by 1.4%. Clinton outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin in 2016 by 3.2%.
I'm sure there are reasons why this is an overly-simplistic analysis, but if Clinton was really a much worse candidate than Biden, you'd expect her to do worse compared to her party nationally than Biden did, rather than better.
The main reason why this is overly simplistic is that POTUS isn't elected by popular vote. Clinton spent too long campaigning in the wrong places.
So the main reason Clinton was "truly diabolical" because she spent too long campaigning in the wrong places? Seems a bit strong.
And if you look at the figures, Biden didn't improve the Dem margin in the Midwest (for example) by more than he improved it nationally, so I still think it probably doesn't stack up (though I haven't looked at the figures in detail).
Well, there were other things too. "Basket of deplorables", for a start, plus the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman and not being Trump, plus some entitled sense of it being her turn.
I don't think she was a good candidate. And clearly Biden was better in that he beat Trump, and Clinton lost. But Biden was only slightly better, and on some metrics worse.
On the other hand, "the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman" is just sexist nonsense.
Labour should move Britain closer to the EU by granting ministers the power to copy EU rules, Tony Blair’s think tank has said.
The institute set up by the former prime minister said the UK must mirror Brussels standards to rebuild trade ties with the continent.
Tory MPs warned the plan would be a betrayal of Brexit and see the country effectively taken back into the single market by stealth.
Under the proposals, Britain would dynamically align with EU rules covering swathes of the economy, most notably food production.
Ministers would be given “keeping pace” powers to update the UK statute books and take account of new laws made in Brussels. Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them.
”We therefore have to make divergence work. We need to push ahead with the scrapping of EU laws – a project now being held up by civil servants who, though they won’t say so, want an incoming Labour government to agree to dynamic alignment with Brussels (ie adopting whatever future laws the EU passes). We should sign trade deals that comply with WTO rules, some of which are directly in conflict with EU practice, especially in agri-foods, where Brussels imposes numerous unscientific bans on protectionist grounds. We should cut taxes.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/26/brexit-should-have-gone-swiss-now-have-no-option-go-singaporean/
Labour should move Britain closer to the EU by granting ministers the power to copy EU rules, Tony Blair’s think tank has said.
The institute set up by the former prime minister said the UK must mirror Brussels standards to rebuild trade ties with the continent.
Tory MPs warned the plan would be a betrayal of Brexit and see the country effectively taken back into the single market by stealth.
Under the proposals, Britain would dynamically align with EU rules covering swathes of the economy, most notably food production.
Ministers would be given “keeping pace” powers to update the UK statute books and take account of new laws made in Brussels. Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them.
It's like "rock, paper, scissors". Biden beats Trump, Trump beats not-Biden, not-Biden beats De Santis, De Santis beats Biden.
Nice construct but I don't agree. I have something more pure and distilled:
Any Dem* is 50/50 against DeSantis. Any Dem* beats Trump.
* within reason.
Hence why I think the Dems are value @ 2.4.
Yes, I think Trump loses to almost any Dem.
It's worth noting how narrow his victory path was in 2016, probably only a 10% shot, and that was against a truly diabolical Dem candidate.
It's probably sub 5% to happen again.
Not sure if H. Clinton was any worse a candidate than Biden, and while neither are great candidates, neither seem truly diabolical.
Biden outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin over Republicans in 2020 by 1.4%. Clinton outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin in 2016 by 3.2%.
I'm sure there are reasons why this is an overly-simplistic analysis, but if Clinton was really a much worse candidate than Biden, you'd expect her to do worse compared to her party nationally than Biden did, rather than better.
The main reason why this is overly simplistic is that POTUS isn't elected by popular vote. Clinton spent too long campaigning in the wrong places.
So the main reason Clinton was "truly diabolical" because she spent too long campaigning in the wrong places? Seems a bit strong.
And if you look at the figures, Biden didn't improve the Dem margin in the Midwest (for example) by more than he improved it nationally, so I still think it probably doesn't stack up (though I haven't looked at the figures in detail).
Well, there were other things too. "Basket of deplorables", for a start, plus the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman and not being Trump, plus some entitled sense of it being her turn.
It's like "rock, paper, scissors". Biden beats Trump, Trump beats not-Biden, not-Biden beats De Santis, De Santis beats Biden.
Nice construct but I don't agree. I have something more pure and distilled:
Any Dem* is 50/50 against DeSantis. Any Dem* beats Trump.
* within reason.
Hence why I think the Dems are value @ 2.4.
Yes, I think Trump loses to almost any Dem.
It's worth noting how narrow his victory path was in 2016, probably only a 10% shot, and that was against a truly diabolical Dem candidate.
It's probably sub 5% to happen again.
Not sure if H. Clinton was any worse a candidate than Biden, and while neither are great candidates, neither seem truly diabolical.
Biden outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin over Republicans in 2020 by 1.4%. Clinton outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin in 2016 by 3.2%.
I'm sure there are reasons why this is an overly-simplistic analysis, but if Clinton was really a much worse candidate than Biden, you'd expect her to do worse compared to her party nationally than Biden did, rather than better.
The main reason why this is overly simplistic is that POTUS isn't elected by popular vote. Clinton spent too long campaigning in the wrong places.
So the main reason Clinton was "truly diabolical" because she spent too long campaigning in the wrong places? Seems a bit strong.
And if you look at the figures, Biden didn't improve the Dem margin in the Midwest (for example) by more than he improved it nationally, so I still think it probably doesn't stack up (though I haven't looked at the figures in detail).
Well, there were other things too. "Basket of deplorables", for a start, plus the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman and not being Trump, plus some entitled sense of it being her turn.
It's like "rock, paper, scissors". Biden beats Trump, Trump beats not-Biden, not-Biden beats De Santis, De Santis beats Biden.
Nice construct but I don't agree. I have something more pure and distilled:
Any Dem* is 50/50 against DeSantis. Any Dem* beats Trump.
* within reason.
Hence why I think the Dems are value @ 2.4.
Yes, I think Trump loses to almost any Dem.
It's worth noting how narrow his victory path was in 2016, probably only a 10% shot, and that was against a truly diabolical Dem candidate.
It's probably sub 5% to happen again.
Not sure if H. Clinton was any worse a candidate than Biden, and while neither are great candidates, neither seem truly diabolical.
Biden outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin over Republicans in 2020 by 1.4%. Clinton outperformed the Democrat House national vote margin in 2016 by 3.2%.
I'm sure there are reasons why this is an overly-simplistic analysis, but if Clinton was really a much worse candidate than Biden, you'd expect her to do worse compared to her party nationally than Biden did, rather than better.
The main reason why this is overly simplistic is that POTUS isn't elected by popular vote. Clinton spent too long campaigning in the wrong places.
So the main reason Clinton was "truly diabolical" because she spent too long campaigning in the wrong places? Seems a bit strong.
And if you look at the figures, Biden didn't improve the Dem margin in the Midwest (for example) by more than he improved it nationally, so I still think it probably doesn't stack up (though I haven't looked at the figures in detail).
Well, there were other things too. "Basket of deplorables", for a start, plus the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman and not being Trump, plus some entitled sense of it being her turn.
I don't think she was a good candidate. And clearly Biden was better in that he beat Trump, and Clinton lost. But Biden was only slightly better, and on some metrics worse.
On the other hand, "the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman" is just sexist nonsense.
Sure, you can portray it that way if you edit the quote. But surely you can't claim that being a woman wasn't part of her pitch?
Labour should move Britain closer to the EU by granting ministers the power to copy EU rules, Tony Blair’s think tank has said.
The institute set up by the former prime minister said the UK must mirror Brussels standards to rebuild trade ties with the continent.
Tory MPs warned the plan would be a betrayal of Brexit and see the country effectively taken back into the single market by stealth.
Under the proposals, Britain would dynamically align with EU rules covering swathes of the economy, most notably food production.
Ministers would be given “keeping pace” powers to update the UK statute books and take account of new laws made in Brussels. Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them.
”We therefore have to make divergence work. We need to push ahead with the scrapping of EU laws – a project now being held up by civil servants who, though they won’t say so, want an incoming Labour government to agree to dynamic alignment with Brussels (ie adopting whatever future laws the EU passes). We should sign trade deals that comply with WTO rules, some of which are directly in conflict with EU practice, especially in agri-foods, where Brussels imposes numerous unscientific bans on protectionist grounds. We should cut taxes.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/26/brexit-should-have-gone-swiss-now-have-no-option-go-singaporean/
Fresh from 'Truss was good actually and was betrayed', now quoting Hannan as if he wasn't perpetually contradicting the stupid shit he'd said previously.
For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.
There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.
You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).
All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.
I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.
It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )
I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough
Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.
You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."
My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.
"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.
You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days
I am answered. Thank you. I never considered that as how it happened.
It’s all falling apart I’m afraid. One of the main scientists who has been pushing the wet market hypothesis for three years - she’s in those emails - has finally backtracked. Remember, she’s been claiming that “lab leak is debunked” all this time.
Her then:
Her now:
You don't get it.
I can be argued around to lab leak. Just get the key questions answered. I don't care about "he said, she said, he said." I don't care that over eighteen days of discussion, people came around from believing it plausible to seeing it as implausible (albeit those eighteen days of discussion might provide a clue as to why). Any more than I care that Isaac Newton was an arsehole who was a twat to Hooke, who insisted Leibniz stole his calculus (when Leibniz obviously came up with it first), and who firmly believed in alchemy, turning base metals into gold, and the like: his Laws of Motion either work or do not work (and they work).
My big issue is the one I've outlined, and all the "he said this at this point and that at that point," or "She was present when it was said to be debunked and has recently said simply she doesn't see that the evidence weighs in favour of it."
None of that answers the question or questions. If they're plausibly answered, then you can get me around.
Farrar didn’t change his mind. He made a ridiculous double back body flip from “50/50” to “conspiracy theory”. You’re too smart not to see the insanity of this
Or maybe you aren’t that smart, and you’re just good with numbers
But I do not wish to be unkind and you’ve been a great source on Covid, and I’ll ascribe your myopia to wilful naivety with good intentions. You like science and scientists and hate the idea they might have caused a pandemic so it’s clouding your judgement. Hey Ho
Now I must get to my flints. Good day
You are ascribing characteristics to Andy that you have no idea that he has and slightly insulting ones at that. Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population (although it happens obviously). It seems to me he would just prefer to see some facts and not nonsense stuff like he describes as 'he said, she said, he said' which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracies.
How about trying not to do this stuff and present evidence.
I have no idea which source is correct, but my judgement IS often clouded when I see stuff like 'he said, she said' from someone who often comes out with conspiracies.
Yeah, I just want to know what the facts are. Not what he said-she-said or whatever.
My stance was:
- Starting point: All the millions of viruses throughout history (MERS, SARS, HKU1, Ebola, Rabies, Lassa, smallpox and other poxes, various influenzas, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, rotavirus, etc, etc, etc) have come through zoonosis. So it's a very well established channel and, as this is the way it's happened literally every time before, the default will be to look at this. - However: There was a virus research lab very close to where this one sparked off. Covering similar viruses. It's therefore natural to think: maybe they're linked? Bioengineering? Accidental leak?
So my starting point was that both were plausible.
There was a flurry of articles and points that purported to point to an artificial origin. The furin cleavage site was the biggest such. Later on, claims of finding "fingerprints" in it. However, the FCS turned out to be not at all a smoking gun (given that many coronaviruses have them, it could even be that when you see a coronavirus in humans, if it's evolved an FCS, it helps it to make the jump. Like with MERS, HKU1, and now SARS-CoV-2). And the "fingerprints" one fell apart rapidly.
The bit that's really pushed me away from lab leak and towards zoonosis (at the moment!) is the tracing of the spark. The fact that there are two separate strains (A and B ) and both sparked separately at the wet market and nowhere else means that it looks even more implausible a coincidence that it could be a lab leak. Which is some going (given that it's a big coincidence, in my mind, for it to happen close to such a lab). So that's my big holdup: how the hell did a random leak happen ONLY to the wet market and none of the other superspreader sites in Wuhan? I could see it happening once as sheer luck/coincidence, and more or less balance out the coincidence needed on the other argument.
But twice? Independently and separated by a fortnight?
And that's why I keep coming back to that question.
Some disposal worker at the lab making a little extra money on the side selling on bats to the market would fit the pattern. Two separate strains making the jump from the bats to humans from the wild is just as much of a huge coincidence
Of course it's not. The lab theory would require the mutation to occur in a very short time and for two animals with different variants to be sold to the market by the same "disposal worker". The zoonotic theory would allow the mutation to have occurred at any time, and two animals with different variants to reach the market from different sources.
I think @pillsbury 's idea that the pipeline from a zoonotic origin animal reservoir could have been diverted by a lab worker (which, I suppose, could work in either direction of lab-to-market or market-to-lab: either with random animals being brought into the lab from long distances away to look for viruses and some being diverted to the market for money, or for the lab to use the pipeline from the market to find animals as well) is the best shot at such an explanation.
On reflection, though, as we'd expect it to be an intermediary animal (most likely a pangolin), it does dent the hypothesis a bit, unless the lab routinely imported such intermediary animals to search for viruses in those. Dented rather than broken, though, as that's not entirely implausible for them to do that. Either way (diverted from coming into lab to coming into market, or from the lab picking out potential such animals from the normal pipeline to the market).
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.
There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.
You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).
All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.
I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.
It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )
I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough
Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.
You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."
My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.
"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.
You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days
I am answered. Thank you. I never considered that as how it happened.
It’s all falling apart I’m afraid. One of the main scientists who has been pushing the wet market hypothesis for three years - she’s in those emails - has finally backtracked. Remember, she’s been claiming that “lab leak is debunked” all this time.
Her then:
Her now:
You don't get it.
I can be argued around to lab leak. Just get the key questions answered. I don't care about "he said, she said, he said." I don't care that over eighteen days of discussion, people came around from believing it plausible to seeing it as implausible (albeit those eighteen days of discussion might provide a clue as to why). Any more than I care that Isaac Newton was an arsehole who was a twat to Hooke, who insisted Leibniz stole his calculus (when Leibniz obviously came up with it first), and who firmly believed in alchemy, turning base metals into gold, and the like: his Laws of Motion either work or do not work (and they work).
My big issue is the one I've outlined, and all the "he said this at this point and that at that point," or "She was present when it was said to be debunked and has recently said simply she doesn't see that the evidence weighs in favour of it."
None of that answers the question or questions. If they're plausibly answered, then you can get me around.
Farrar didn’t change his mind. He made a ridiculous double back body flip from “50/50” to “conspiracy theory”. You’re too smart not to see the insanity of this
Or maybe you aren’t that smart, and you’re just good with numbers
But I do not wish to be unkind and you’ve been a great source on Covid, and I’ll ascribe your myopia to wilful naivety with good intentions. You like science and scientists and hate the idea they might have caused a pandemic so it’s clouding your judgement. Hey Ho
Now I must get to my flints. Good day
You are ascribing characteristics to Andy that you have no idea that he has and slightly insulting ones at that. Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population (although it happens obviously). It seems to me he would just prefer to see some facts and not nonsense stuff like he describes as 'he said, she said, he said' which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracies.
How about trying not to do this stuff and present evidence.
I have no idea which source is correct, but my judgement IS often clouded when I see stuff like 'he said, she said' from someone who often comes out with conspiracies.
"Scientists tend to rely on evidence" is utter gibberish for starters. What job do you do that doesn't? Even if you are unemployed, life is a pretty evidence based enterprise anyway (water is falling on my head; this evidence of rain prompts me to put my umbrella up.) He is treating the non lab leak theory as the default from which he needs to be swayed, which is not an evidence-based position, and you are actually doing he said, she said stuff under the illusion that you are criticising it, in a beautiful example of circular logic.
That has to be one of the most bonkers posts I have ever seen.
Starting with the statement 'Scientists tend to rely on evidence is utter gibberish for starters'. Great start.
Then suggesting that everyone does. No they don't. Scientist rely on evidence much more than the rest of people do in every day life. It is sort of what science is. In everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely. Astrologers for instance and of course conspiracy theories rely on ignoring evidence.
And nowhere did I use circular logic and nowhere did I rely on 'he says, she says'. God knows where you got that from.
"which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracy theories" is, whether you like it or not, an ad hominem argument based on what "he said."
Saying that "In everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely" is either ad hominem (Leon is in your view one of these people) or irrelevant (he is not.)
I note you dodge the question of what your evidence free occupation actually is.
I'm sorry this is really nonsense.
a) Are you really suggesting that stating that there are people putting forward conspiracy theories are not basing them on evidence is at all controversial. It is not an ad hominem attack and I notice you regularly accuse people of making such attacks when they are not, but are attacking the argument.
b) Similarly saying in everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely is also a non controversial statement and also not an ad hominem attack. Note the word 'we' and 'masses of people' which rather gives the game away that it wasn't a personal attack.
c) Leon is not one of these people nor is he irrelevant, but even he would admit he does come out with conspiracy theories. It is his trademark for goodness sake. Have you read many of his posts on aliens?
d) I didn't answer the question about the job as it is irrelevant whether I do an evidence based job at all. The point is many people do believe things not based upon evidence (religion, astrology, gut feelings, etc, etc) and scientist when researching stuff by and large do base their research on evidence. And that is the point and the only point being made.
e) FYI in terms of my job, I am retired. I ran my own business organising large organisations into commercial pressure groups, before that I worked for one of the largest computer companies and before that I worked for one of the largest consultancies. My degree is in Mathematics and I specialised in Logic, so I do rather know whether I am applying a circular argument or whether I am arguing a statement, stating a fact or making a personal attack thank you very much.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Edit: especially when you have an alternative. If you were just walking somewhere you wouldn't be in the road, and surely they can't claim that they're not being wilfully disruptive?
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Edit: especially when you have an alternative. If you were just walking somewhere you wouldn't be in the road, and surely they can't claim that they're not being wilfully disruptive?
It is how the short lived fuel protestors got popped by the police. Funny how quick they were to use every legal measure to stop them in their tracks.
Labour should move Britain closer to the EU by granting ministers the power to copy EU rules, Tony Blair’s think tank has said.
The institute set up by the former prime minister said the UK must mirror Brussels standards to rebuild trade ties with the continent.
Tory MPs warned the plan would be a betrayal of Brexit and see the country effectively taken back into the single market by stealth.
Under the proposals, Britain would dynamically align with EU rules covering swathes of the economy, most notably food production.
Ministers would be given “keeping pace” powers to update the UK statute books and take account of new laws made in Brussels. Parliament would be able to either accept or reject the changes but not amend them.
”We therefore have to make divergence work. We need to push ahead with the scrapping of EU laws – a project now being held up by civil servants who, though they won’t say so, want an incoming Labour government to agree to dynamic alignment with Brussels (ie adopting whatever future laws the EU passes). We should sign trade deals that comply with WTO rules, some of which are directly in conflict with EU practice, especially in agri-foods, where Brussels imposes numerous unscientific bans on protectionist grounds. We should cut taxes.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/26/brexit-should-have-gone-swiss-now-have-no-option-go-singaporean/
Fresh from 'Truss was good actually and was betrayed', now quoting Hannan as if he wasn't perpetually contradicting the stupid shit he'd said previously.
I salute your indefatigability etc.
I'm surprised Hannan is still employed. Any claims he had to be taken seriously as a pundit literally ended on the day of the Brexit result.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
Yep that's the possible grey area. Highway code would certainly say they should be in single file, but again hard to put in law. Pedestrians should be able to overtake one another and if that became somehow the only excuse in law for being side by side it would be possible to choreograph a demonstration like this with continuous cyclic overtaking.
This is not really much different to the cycling club peloton taking up the whole carriageway in one direction.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
The state could pass a law criminalising walking on the road unless there's no alternative, but it hasn't AFAIK done so, so all that is not forbidden is lawful.
That they're deliberately trying to inconvenience others possibly makes them dicks, but not criminals, unlike those who were sitting down which was against the law.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Yep, but not strictly illegal in GB. Jaywalking is apparently illegal in NI, maybe due to their own problems with banner/flag carrying oddballs?
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Highways Act 1980, s. 137.
But its not obstructed. Sitting down is obstructing the passage, this is just slowing down the passage.
Being slowed down is not an obstruction. Its illegal to walk on motorways, but not regular roads.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Highway code says exactly this ..
Rule 1 Pavements and footways (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided.
Rule 5 Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Highway code says exactly this ..
Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
'should' be used. If backed up by law it would be 'must' be used.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Highways Act 1980, s. 137.
But its not obstructed. Sitting down is obstructing the passage, this is just slowing down the passage.
Being slowed down is not an obstruction. Its illegal to walk on motorways, but not regular roads.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Highway code says exactly this ..
Rule 1 Pavements and footways (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided.
Rule 5 Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
Exactly, not a law.
Highway code uses "should" for "guidance" and "must" for law.
Since that says should, it is not a matter of law, but of guidance. People are free to break guidance without breaking the law, as we all know from Covid.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Presumably, against this backdrop, Braverman will look at some form of legislation to tackle this. all in the name of protecting the public.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Highways Act 1980, s. 137.
Interesting, but we're still into the meaning of 'obstruct' and also 'lawful excuse'.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Highway code says exactly this ..
Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
'should' be used. If backed up by law it would be 'must' be used.
Is it not at the same time the police responsibility to ensure the best practice of the highway code is being followed, not being an enabler of poor practice?
It's interesting that most of the Just Stop Oil lot seem to protest in and around London, not the cheapest place to live without a job as is seemingly the situation of most of them.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Highways Act 1980, s. 137.
Interesting, but we're still into the meaning of 'obstruct' and also 'lawful excuse'.
"Obstruct" has the meaning in plain English, unless otherwise defined in the statute (and I can't find a definitions section in that Act).
Private school fees have gone up phenomenally even adjusting for inflation since I went in the eighties. They've made a rod for their own backs on this one imo.
It's interesting that most of the Just Stop Oil lot seem to protest in and around London, not the cheapest place to live without a job as is seemingly the situation of most of them.
They aren't stupid, they know what gets media coverage.
It's interesting that most of the Just Stop Oil lot seem to protest in and around London, not the cheapest place to live without a job as is seemingly the situation of most of them.
Its not exactly a shock when you find out most come from extremely rich and priviledged backgrounds. Normal folk are too busy working to pay to keep the heating on and put food on the table to be spending weekday after weekday doing this shit.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Highways Act 1980, s. 137.
But its not obstructed. Sitting down is obstructing the passage, this is just slowing down the passage.
Being slowed down is not an obstruction. Its illegal to walk on motorways, but not regular roads.
And lawful protest can be a "legal excuse" under the Highways Act 1980, s. 137 too.
The Supreme Court has ruled that when judging under s. 137 a protest it is a balancing act between the right to protest and the requirement not to obstruct the roads. Even sitting down can be lawful, if the protest excuse is deemed to outweigh the obstruction but the courts have ruled that the balance should be struck based on multiple factors including how long the road was blocked for.
If the protest is walking, it might be inconvenient, but its almost certainly lawful.
It's interesting that most of the Just Stop Oil lot seem to protest in and around London, not the cheapest place to live without a job as is seemingly the situation of most of them.
If they pulled this stunt in a place like Burnley the media wouldn't give a toss as it wouldn't really impact them.
When we had storm Arwen in the North is barely raised a murmur on the national news unlike other storms.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Highway code says exactly this ..
Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
'should' be used. If backed up by law it would be 'must' be used.
Is it not at the same time the police responsibility to ensure the best practice of the highway code is being followed, not being an enabler of poor practice?
No. It is the Police's responsibility to ensure the law is followed.
The Police trying to enforce guidance is what leads to the mess of the Police overreaching with Covid seeing how long people have been exercising for and other nonsense.
It's interesting that most of the Just Stop Oil lot seem to protest in and around London, not the cheapest place to live without a job as is seemingly the situation of most of them.
Good place to get attention of (still quite London-centric) media though.
As a northerner (by adoption) I approve*
*or at least, disapprove less than if this was in my road. Although even then, a bit of slowing down of traffic outside the house would not be entirely unwelcome
Private school fees have gone up phenomenally even adjusting for inflation since I went in the eighties. They've made a rod for their own backs on this one imo.
Private school headteachers are also some of the most arrogant individuals I’ve ever met - so I am really not sure where I’m meant to be sympathetic
For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.
There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.
You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).
All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.
I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.
It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )
I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough
Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.
You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."
My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.
"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.
You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days
I am answered. Thank you. I never considered that as how it happened.
It’s all falling apart I’m afraid. One of the main scientists who has been pushing the wet market hypothesis for three years - she’s in those emails - has finally backtracked. Remember, she’s been claiming that “lab leak is debunked” all this time.
Her then:
Her now:
You don't get it.
I can be argued around to lab leak. Just get the key questions answered. I don't care about "he said, she said, he said." I don't care that over eighteen days of discussion, people came around from believing it plausible to seeing it as implausible (albeit those eighteen days of discussion might provide a clue as to why). Any more than I care that Isaac Newton was an arsehole who was a twat to Hooke, who insisted Leibniz stole his calculus (when Leibniz obviously came up with it first), and who firmly believed in alchemy, turning base metals into gold, and the like: his Laws of Motion either work or do not work (and they work).
My big issue is the one I've outlined, and all the "he said this at this point and that at that point," or "She was present when it was said to be debunked and has recently said simply she doesn't see that the evidence weighs in favour of it."
None of that answers the question or questions. If they're plausibly answered, then you can get me around.
Farrar didn’t change his mind. He made a ridiculous double back body flip from “50/50” to “conspiracy theory”. You’re too smart not to see the insanity of this
Or maybe you aren’t that smart, and you’re just good with numbers
But I do not wish to be unkind and you’ve been a great source on Covid, and I’ll ascribe your myopia to wilful naivety with good intentions. You like science and scientists and hate the idea they might have caused a pandemic so it’s clouding your judgement. Hey Ho
Now I must get to my flints. Good day
You are ascribing characteristics to Andy that you have no idea that he has and slightly insulting ones at that. Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population (although it happens obviously). It seems to me he would just prefer to see some facts and not nonsense stuff like he describes as 'he said, she said, he said' which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracies.
How about trying not to do this stuff and present evidence.
I have no idea which source is correct, but my judgement IS often clouded when I see stuff like 'he said, she said' from someone who often comes out with conspiracies.
"Scientists tend to rely on evidence" is utter gibberish for starters. What job do you do that doesn't? Even if you are unemployed, life is a pretty evidence based enterprise anyway (water is falling on my head; this evidence of rain prompts me to put my umbrella up.) He is treating the non lab leak theory as the default from which he needs to be swayed, which is not an evidence-based position, and you are actually doing he said, she said stuff under the illusion that you are criticising it, in a beautiful example of circular logic.
That has to be one of the most bonkers posts I have ever seen.
Starting with the statement 'Scientists tend to rely on evidence is utter gibberish for starters'. Great start.
Then suggesting that everyone does. No they don't. Scientist rely on evidence much more than the rest of people do in every day life. It is sort of what science is. In everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely. Astrologers for instance and of course conspiracy theories rely on ignoring evidence.
And nowhere did I use circular logic and nowhere did I rely on 'he says, she says'. God knows where you got that from.
"which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracy theories" is, whether you like it or not, an ad hominem argument based on what "he said."
Saying that "In everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely" is either ad hominem (Leon is in your view one of these people) or irrelevant (he is not.)
I note you dodge the question of what your evidence free occupation actually is.
I'm sorry this is really nonsense.
a) Are you really suggesting that stating that there are people putting forward conspiracy theories are not basing them on evidence is at all controversial. It is not an ad hominem attack and I notice you regularly accuse people of making such attacks when they are not, but are attacking the argument.
b) Similarly saying in everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely is also a non controversial statement and also not an ad hominem attack. Note the word 'we' and 'masses of people' which rather gives the game away that it wasn't a personal attack.
c) Leon is not one of these people nor is he irrelevant, but even he would admit he does come out with conspiracy theories. It is his trademark for goodness sake. Have you read many of his posts on aliens?
d) I didn't answer the question about the job as it is irrelevant whether I do an evidence based job at all. The point is many people do believe things not based upon evidence (religion, astrology, gut feelings, etc, etc) and scientist when researching stuff by and large do base their research on evidence. And that is the point and the only point being made.
e) FYI in terms of my job, I am retired. I ran my own business organising large organisations into commercial pressure groups, before that I worked for one of the largest computer companies and before that I worked for one of the largest consultancies. My degree is in Mathematics and I specialised in Logic, so I do rather know whether I am applying a circular argument or whether I am arguing a statement, stating a fact or making a personal attack thank you very much.
You must have dozed off in a few of the lectures, then. Your bizarre claim that scientists have privileged access to the concept of evidence is ad hominem in its purest form, the Platonic ideal of ad hominem: Never mind the ARGUMENT, concentrate on the fact that the MAN ADVANCING IT is a SCIENTIST, do you hear?
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Highways Act 1980, s. 137.
But its not obstructed. Sitting down is obstructing the passage, this is just slowing down the passage.
Being slowed down is not an obstruction. Its illegal to walk on motorways, but not regular roads.
And lawful protest can be a "legal excuse" under the Highways Act 1980, s. 137 too.
The Supreme Court has ruled that when judging under s. 137 a protest it is a balancing act between the right to protest and the requirement not to obstruct the roads. Even sitting down can be lawful, if the protest excuse is deemed to outweigh the obstruction but the courts have ruled that the balance should be struck based on multiple factors including how long the road was blocked for.
If the protest is walking, it might be inconvenient, but its almost certainly lawful.
How can "lawful protest" be an excuse to determine whether the protest is lawful? That sounds rather circular.
It will push up the fees for hard working parents some of whom will then be forced to send their kids to state schools so it ends up costing the government more.
Yes, they're charities and education is charitable and thus not liable to VAT.
If they're going to be gone after, then there's a lot more charities that seek to exploit charitable status to make money that could be gone after too.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Highway code says exactly this ..
Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
'should' be used. If backed up by law it would be 'must' be used.
Is it not at the same time the police responsibility to ensure the best practice of the highway code is being followed, not being an enabler of poor practice?
Thing is, if this is legal (it's at least not clear that it is illegal) then the sensible thing seems to be for the police to escort and discourage other illegal behaviour from irate motorists. A driver might be tempted to tear past a protestor in a tiny gap in oncoming traffic, but less likely to do that with the plod plodding along on the outside.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Highways Act 1980, s. 137.
But its not obstructed. Sitting down is obstructing the passage, this is just slowing down the passage.
Being slowed down is not an obstruction. Its illegal to walk on motorways, but not regular roads.
And lawful protest can be a "legal excuse" under the Highways Act 1980, s. 137 too.
The Supreme Court has ruled that when judging under s. 137 a protest it is a balancing act between the right to protest and the requirement not to obstruct the roads. Even sitting down can be lawful, if the protest excuse is deemed to outweigh the obstruction but the courts have ruled that the balance should be struck based on multiple factors including how long the road was blocked for.
If the protest is walking, it might be inconvenient, but its almost certainly lawful.
How can "lawful protest" be an excuse to determine whether the protest is lawful? That sounds rather circular.
Protest is a protected right under the law.
If you're breaking the law in another way, eg assaulting someone while doing so, it ceases to be lawful protest. But if you're not, then it falls under the "reasonable excuse" proviso of the law.
Its circular to say its not lawful because they're on the road, therefore don't have an excuse, so shouldn't be on the road. Protest is lawful, and is a protected excuse, but the excuse must be balanced against other factors by the law.
Popped into the garage the other day and picked up a (very tasty) bar of chocolate. From Ritter Sport. What on earth is with that name for chocolate bars.
On protests, I believe that if you want to march to Trafalgar Square to protest about or support something or other (and I understand there are such protests/support marches on many weekends), then I believe you need a permit. ie five hundred people can't just form up at the Hard Rock Cafe and march down Piccadilly under banners to Trafalgar Square.
You have to assume this worked in his favour. The bigger personalities rose to the surface and hogged the airtime, edging closer to elimination just because people remembered they existed. His people will hail third place as a wild victory, but in reality it’s just the same as Dean coming third on Big Brother 2. Both hid in plain sight until people realised they hadn’t yet been voted out.
Unlike Big Brother, you vote to keep people in I'm a Celebrity.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Highway code says exactly this ..
Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
'should' be used. If backed up by law it would be 'must' be used.
Is it not at the same time the police responsibility to ensure the best practice of the highway code is being followed, not being an enabler of poor practice?
Thing is, if this is legal (it's at least not clear that it is illegal) then the sensible thing seems to be for the police to escort and discourage other illegal behaviour from irate motorists. A driver might be tempted to tear past a protestor in a tiny gap in oncoming traffic, but less likely to do that with the plod plodding along on the outside.
If there's a tiny gap in oncoming traffic then it might be a legal opportunity to overtake.
Where does it say you must not do so on that link? Again, remembering that should is not law as you and I have both said, so rule 163 (overtaking) is guidance not law.
Rule 165 (overtaking) is law, but doesn't seem relevant.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Highway code says exactly this ..
Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
'should' be used. If backed up by law it would be 'must' be used.
Is it not at the same time the police responsibility to ensure the best practice of the highway code is being followed, not being an enabler of poor practice?
Thing is, if this is legal (it's at least not clear that it is illegal) then the sensible thing seems to be for the police to escort and discourage other illegal behaviour from irate motorists. A driver might be tempted to tear past a protestor in a tiny gap in oncoming traffic, but less likely to do that with the plod plodding along on the outside.
If there's a tiny gap in oncoming traffic then it might be a legal opportunity to overtake.
Where does it say you must not do so on that link? Again, remembering that should is not law as you and I have both said, so rule 163 (overtaking) is guidance not law.
Rule 165 (overtaking) is law, but doesn't seem relevant.
Are there not a zillion side streets that (at least) cars could turn down and thereby bypass the protest?
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Yep, but not strictly illegal in GB. Jaywalking is apparently illegal in NI, maybe due to their own problems with banner/flag carrying oddballs?
Scottish Police provide an escort (on foot and cars) for the innumerable Orange Marches held through the year. If you're driving you're stuck behind them until you find an exit, if on foot and want to cross the road, you may be..er..remonstrated with by the marchers and their followers.
Yes, they're charities and education is charitable and thus not liable to VAT.
If they're going to be gone after, then there's a lot more charities that seek to exploit charitable status to make money that could be gone after too.
Naah, different point. They are exempt because the VAT Act says so
The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6 provides exemption for the provision of education, vocational training and closely-related goods and services.
A scheme that will see households rewarded for not using power-intensive products at peak times could be used for the first time on Tuesday, it has been revealed.
National Grid's system operator said it may activate its Demand Flexibility Service (DFS), which is designed to avoid blackouts, on Tuesday evening to reduce strain on the electricity grid.
The scheme sees households, which are signed up for the initiative, paid to not use things like electric ovens, dishwashers and tumble driers between certain hours.
It is the first line of defence in the event that peak evening demand exceeds supply over the coming winter.
John Terry and Wayne Bridge, the former Chelsea and England team-mates who were at the centre of one of English football’s biggest scandals, have been reunited in awkward circumstances: they are staying at the same Qatari World Cup hotel.
The former friends were the subject of a rift when it was alleged that Terry had been in a relationship with Bridge’s partner, Vanessa Perroncel, in 2009, with the story being published the following year by The News of the World.
The newspaper later issued an apology for the story, publishing Perroncel’s claims that it was “untrue”. Nevertheless, the two former friends have never reconciled with Bridge refusing to shake Terry’s hand in the Premier League pre-match “Fair Play” handshakes on more than one occasion.
This is a very bad decision. https://mobile.twitter.com/mattsteinglass/status/1597154761618300929 Extremely troubling ruling by the European Court of Justice will be welcomed by corrupt oligarchs everywhere. They can hide their ownership of shell companies again, claiming “privacy” rights. via @FT
It's interesting that most of the Just Stop Oil lot seem to protest in and around London, not the cheapest place to live without a job as is seemingly the situation of most of them.
If they pulled this stunt in a place like Burnley the media wouldn't give a toss as it wouldn't really impact them.
When we had storm Arwen in the North is barely raised a murmur on the national news unlike other storms.
Thats absolutely not true. It was mentioned on the weather forecast...
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Yep, but not strictly illegal in GB. Jaywalking is apparently illegal in NI, maybe due to their own problems with banner/flag carrying oddballs?
Scottish Police provide an escort (on foot and cars) for the innumerable Orange Marches held through the year. If you're driving you're stuck behind them until you find an exit, if on foot and want to cross the road, you may be..er..remonstrated with by the marchers and their followers.
Back in about 1993, I was trapped on a D6 bus going around the Isle of Dogs. The bus moved slowly behind a mass of police vehicles and police officers. It turned out Derek ?Beackon? and his BNP friends were having a march, and the police were surrounding the marchers.
When I finally saw them, there were about half-a dozen marchers, and probably twenty or thirty police. I don't think l I saw a single protestor.
Also, I bumped into an Orange march in Liverpool a few years back. They all looked so effing glum. They need to put some happy juice into their orange...
Popped into the garage the other day and picked up a (very tasty) bar of chocolate. From Ritter Sport. What on earth is with that name for chocolate bars.
Just your regular genocidal discourse in Russia. https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1597089807171485696 Meanwhile in Russia: the host and his guest concur that Ukraine should be erased off the map and even the memory that it existed should be destroyed. The host says that Russia will always be an empire and being in a state of war is only natural for any empire of Russia's size.
A scheme that will see households rewarded for not using power-intensive products at peak times could be used for the first time on Tuesday, it has been revealed.
National Grid's system operator said it may activate its Demand Flexibility Service (DFS), which is designed to avoid blackouts, on Tuesday evening to reduce strain on the electricity grid.
The scheme sees households, which are signed up for the initiative, paid to not use things like electric ovens, dishwashers and tumble driers between certain hours.
It is the first line of defence in the event that peak evening demand exceeds supply over the coming winter.
Seemingly this has been triggered by planned French nuclear power plant outages. Presumably this is being done so we can export more electricity to France to cover this.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
Then you outlaw horse-drawn carriages among other things (horses alone, cyclists?). For those, drivers are expected to overtake; if the opposite carriageway is too busy to allow that then hard luck.
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
Why don't you get them lunch while you are at it...Perhaps a foot rub for any of the protestors who feet are a bit sore...
But it is presumably legal to walk down a normal street, at walking pace, in the correct direction for the lane and keeping to that lane? It's not that (any?) different in law to a very slow cyclist (or group of slow cyclists) or a horse being walked along a road. The Highway Code is all 'should' on this, indicating no legal weight (which would be 'must').
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
Obstructing the highway is illegal.
But is it obstruction when you are progressing along the highway at a normal pace for your mode of transport?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
If you're stopping others progressing at a normal pace for their mode of transport, surely it is.
I have more respect for protestors who are walking on the road than sitting on it. The former, within reason, is lawful the latter is not.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
For both of these: see the edit. These twats are deliberately being disruptive by obstructing the free passage along the highway of vehicles that have no alternative when they have an alternative - the pavement.
Just because you have an alternative does not make your choice to take an inconvenient alternative illegal.
It does if you're wilfully obstructing the free passage of others along the highway, which they are definitely doing.
Under what statute? What part of the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do that?
Highways Act 1980, s. 137.
But its not obstructed. Sitting down is obstructing the passage, this is just slowing down the passage.
Being slowed down is not an obstruction. Its illegal to walk on motorways, but not regular roads.
I'd say slowing is obstructing. Its obstructing regular passage of traffic, its just partial not full.
I don't mind people protesting by walking if they have all the necessary permits, should one be needed, and are moving (not on the M6, obvs). In cities you can just wait a few minutes and zip down a side street with Waze's help and be on your way.
The protests will become no big deal which is either good or bad depending upon your point of view.
This is a very bad decision. https://mobile.twitter.com/mattsteinglass/status/1597154761618300929 Extremely troubling ruling by the European Court of Justice will be welcomed by corrupt oligarchs everywhere. They can hide their ownership of shell companies again, claiming “privacy” rights. via @FT
Privacy is an important right yet often abused by the powerful to hide what they are doing that impacts others, but acting as if its the same as personal privacy.
For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.
There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.
You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).
All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.
I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.
It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )
I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough
Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.
You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."
My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.
"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.
You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days
I am answered. Thank you. I never considered that as how it happened.
It’s all falling apart I’m afraid. One of the main scientists who has been pushing the wet market hypothesis for three years - she’s in those emails - has finally backtracked. Remember, she’s been claiming that “lab leak is debunked” all this time.
Her then:
Her now:
You don't get it.
I can be argued around to lab leak. Just get the key questions answered. I don't care about "he said, she said, he said." I don't care that over eighteen days of discussion, people came around from believing it plausible to seeing it as implausible (albeit those eighteen days of discussion might provide a clue as to why). Any more than I care that Isaac Newton was an arsehole who was a twat to Hooke, who insisted Leibniz stole his calculus (when Leibniz obviously came up with it first), and who firmly believed in alchemy, turning base metals into gold, and the like: his Laws of Motion either work or do not work (and they work).
My big issue is the one I've outlined, and all the "he said this at this point and that at that point," or "She was present when it was said to be debunked and has recently said simply she doesn't see that the evidence weighs in favour of it."
None of that answers the question or questions. If they're plausibly answered, then you can get me around.
Farrar didn’t change his mind. He made a ridiculous double back body flip from “50/50” to “conspiracy theory”. You’re too smart not to see the insanity of this
Or maybe you aren’t that smart, and you’re just good with numbers
But I do not wish to be unkind and you’ve been a great source on Covid, and I’ll ascribe your myopia to wilful naivety with good intentions. You like science and scientists and hate the idea they might have caused a pandemic so it’s clouding your judgement. Hey Ho
Now I must get to my flints. Good day
You are ascribing characteristics to Andy that you have no idea that he has and slightly insulting ones at that. Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population (although it happens obviously). It seems to me he would just prefer to see some facts and not nonsense stuff like he describes as 'he said, she said, he said' which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracies.
How about trying not to do this stuff and present evidence.
I have no idea which source is correct, but my judgement IS often clouded when I see stuff like 'he said, she said' from someone who often comes out with conspiracies.
"Scientists tend to rely on evidence" is utter gibberish for starters. What job do you do that doesn't? Even if you are unemployed, life is a pretty evidence based enterprise anyway (water is falling on my head; this evidence of rain prompts me to put my umbrella up.) He is treating the non lab leak theory as the default from which he needs to be swayed, which is not an evidence-based position, and you are actually doing he said, she said stuff under the illusion that you are criticising it, in a beautiful example of circular logic.
That has to be one of the most bonkers posts I have ever seen.
Starting with the statement 'Scientists tend to rely on evidence is utter gibberish for starters'. Great start.
Then suggesting that everyone does. No they don't. Scientist rely on evidence much more than the rest of people do in every day life. It is sort of what science is. In everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely. Astrologers for instance and of course conspiracy theories rely on ignoring evidence.
And nowhere did I use circular logic and nowhere did I rely on 'he says, she says'. God knows where you got that from.
"which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracy theories" is, whether you like it or not, an ad hominem argument based on what "he said."
Saying that "In everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely" is either ad hominem (Leon is in your view one of these people) or irrelevant (he is not.)
I note you dodge the question of what your evidence free occupation actually is.
I'm sorry this is really nonsense.
a) Are you really suggesting that stating that there are people putting forward conspiracy theories are not basing them on evidence is at all controversial. It is not an ad hominem attack and I notice you regularly accuse people of making such attacks when they are not, but are attacking the argument.
b) Similarly saying in everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely is also a non controversial statement and also not an ad hominem attack. Note the word 'we' and 'masses of people' which rather gives the game away that it wasn't a personal attack.
c) Leon is not one of these people nor is he irrelevant, but even he would admit he does come out with conspiracy theories. It is his trademark for goodness sake. Have you read many of his posts on aliens?
d) I didn't answer the question about the job as it is irrelevant whether I do an evidence based job at all. The point is many people do believe things not based upon evidence (religion, astrology, gut feelings, etc, etc) and scientist when researching stuff by and large do base their research on evidence. And that is the point and the only point being made.
e) FYI in terms of my job, I am retired. I ran my own business organising large organisations into commercial pressure groups, before that I worked for one of the largest computer companies and before that I worked for one of the largest consultancies. My degree is in Mathematics and I specialised in Logic, so I do rather know whether I am applying a circular argument or whether I am arguing a statement, stating a fact or making a personal attack thank you very much.
You must have dozed off in a few of the lectures, then. Your bizarre claim that scientists have privileged access to the concept of evidence is ad hominem in its purest form, the Platonic ideal of ad hominem: Never mind the ARGUMENT, concentrate on the fact that the MAN ADVANCING IT is a SCIENTIST, do you hear?
OK you are now just making stuff up. At no point did I say 'scientists have a privileged access to the concept of evidence'. Where the hell did you get that from? However what I did say (paraphrasing) is that scientists tend to be more evidenced based than astrologers, people who have gut feelings, people who believe in conspiracies. And if that is not blindingly obvious to you, then you are a lost cause.
Also at no point did I say you should concentrate on the man advancing the argument and not the argument. Again you are just making that up as well.
Please stop putting words into my mouth that I did not say.
One wonders if you have taken a bet as to how many times you can post 'ad hominem' today.
Worse - it's gold cans, which is caffeine free Diet Coke. Which completely misses all the point of Coke.
Caffeine free Diet Coke? I drink Diet Coke as I don't want to rot my teeth, but caffeine free . . . can't respect that.
Are you as kind to your teeth as you think? I'm no @turbotubbs but surely all fizzy drinks are acidic by virtue of the carbon dioxide dissolved in water, and probably citric acid for fruit-flavoured drinks, and phosphoric acid for full-fat Coke so probably Diet Coke as well. (Does pb have its own dentist? I vaguely think we used to.)
Popped into the garage the other day and picked up a (very tasty) bar of chocolate. From Ritter Sport. What on earth is with that name for chocolate bars.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal against her 20-year jail sentence for sex trafficking is on the brink of collapse after her estranged husband refused to pay her legal fees.
Scott Borgerson, 46, who married Maxwell, 60, in secret in 2016 and ended the relationship over the phone when she was in jail awaiting trial, has ignored her requests to pay a $900,000 legal bill and a further $1 million to challenge her conviction, according to The Sun.
Until the money is transferred her legal team cannot work on the appeal against her 20-year prison sentence for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender and financier who killed himself in jail.
"The Pentagon is considering a Boeing proposal to supply Ukraine with [the 150 km range] Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) ... It combines the GBU-39 SDB with the M26 rocket motor ... GLSDB could be delivered as early as spring 2023." https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyPlopsky/status/1597162415405531136
Uses stockpiled components, so plenty available, and they are cheap.
Sounds like a proposal designed to lure the Kremlin back to the negotiating table.
Worse - it's gold cans, which is caffeine free Diet Coke. Which completely misses all the point of Coke.
Caffeine free Diet Coke? I drink Diet Coke as I don't want to rot my teeth, but caffeine free . . . can't respect that.
Are you as kind to your teeth as you think? I'm no @turbotubbs but surely all fizzy drinks are acidic by virtue of the carbon dioxide dissolved in water, and probably citric acid for fruit-flavoured drinks, and phosphoric acid for full-fat Coke so probably Diet Coke as well. (Does pb have its own dentist? I vaguely think we used to.)
Diet drinks are to be avoided. The artificial sweeteners play havoc with apetite and the regulation of hunger. They are indeed acidic thanks to the CO2 and other acids. Best to drink with a straw if at all.
Worse - it's gold cans, which is caffeine free Diet Coke. Which completely misses all the point of Coke.
Caffeine free Diet Coke? I drink Diet Coke as I don't want to rot my teeth, but caffeine free . . . can't respect that.
Are you as kind to your teeth as you think? I'm no @turbotubbs but surely all fizzy drinks are acidic by virtue of the carbon dioxide dissolved in water, and probably citric acid for fruit-flavoured drinks, and phosphoric acid for full-fat Coke so probably Diet Coke as well. (Does pb have its own dentist? I vaguely think we used to.)
It is all total garbage. Why anyone would drink it is beyond me.
This is a very bad decision. https://mobile.twitter.com/mattsteinglass/status/1597154761618300929 Extremely troubling ruling by the European Court of Justice will be welcomed by corrupt oligarchs everywhere. They can hide their ownership of shell companies again, claiming “privacy” rights. via @FT
Article 8 strikes again. It is turning the ECHR into a charter for fraudsters, illegal migrants, tax evaders and general criminals looking to hide their criminality. When the convention was written it didn't envisage today's hyper connected world, people in Europe treat reform of it in the same way Americans treat reform of the US constitution. Both are outdated and need significant reform to reflect the modern era. The ECJ it bound by the charter, it's a poor decision but I don't see that they had any choice. What's worrying is that these same dodgy oligarchs will now use that decision to get a similar ruling in the UK and the Supreme Court will be bound by the same bits of the charter so their illicit money is forever hidden and they can continue to accumulate it.
For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.
There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.
You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).
All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.
I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.
It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )
I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough
Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.
You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."
My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.
"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.
You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days
I am answered. Thank you. I never considered that as how it happened.
It’s all falling apart I’m afraid. One of the main scientists who has been pushing the wet market hypothesis for three years - she’s in those emails - has finally backtracked. Remember, she’s been claiming that “lab leak is debunked” all this time.
Her then:
Her now:
You don't get it.
I can be argued around to lab leak. Just get the key questions answered. I don't care about "he said, she said, he said." I don't care that over eighteen days of discussion, people came around from believing it plausible to seeing it as implausible (albeit those eighteen days of discussion might provide a clue as to why). Any more than I care that Isaac Newton was an arsehole who was a twat to Hooke, who insisted Leibniz stole his calculus (when Leibniz obviously came up with it first), and who firmly believed in alchemy, turning base metals into gold, and the like: his Laws of Motion either work or do not work (and they work).
My big issue is the one I've outlined, and all the "he said this at this point and that at that point," or "She was present when it was said to be debunked and has recently said simply she doesn't see that the evidence weighs in favour of it."
None of that answers the question or questions. If they're plausibly answered, then you can get me around.
Farrar didn’t change his mind. He made a ridiculous double back body flip from “50/50” to “conspiracy theory”. You’re too smart not to see the insanity of this
Or maybe you aren’t that smart, and you’re just good with numbers
But I do not wish to be unkind and you’ve been a great source on Covid, and I’ll ascribe your myopia to wilful naivety with good intentions. You like science and scientists and hate the idea they might have caused a pandemic so it’s clouding your judgement. Hey Ho
Now I must get to my flints. Good day
You are ascribing characteristics to Andy that you have no idea that he has and slightly insulting ones at that. Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population (although it happens obviously). It seems to me he would just prefer to see some facts and not nonsense stuff like he describes as 'he said, she said, he said' which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracies.
How about trying not to do this stuff and present evidence.
I have no idea which source is correct, but my judgement IS often clouded when I see stuff like 'he said, she said' from someone who often comes out with conspiracies.
"Scientists tend to rely on evidence" is utter gibberish for starters. What job do you do that doesn't? Even if you are unemployed, life is a pretty evidence based enterprise anyway (water is falling on my head; this evidence of rain prompts me to put my umbrella up.) He is treating the non lab leak theory as the default from which he needs to be swayed, which is not an evidence-based position, and you are actually doing he said, she said stuff under the illusion that you are criticising it, in a beautiful example of circular logic.
That has to be one of the most bonkers posts I have ever seen.
Starting with the statement 'Scientists tend to rely on evidence is utter gibberish for starters'. Great start.
Then suggesting that everyone does. No they don't. Scientist rely on evidence much more than the rest of people do in every day life. It is sort of what science is. In everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely. Astrologers for instance and of course conspiracy theories rely on ignoring evidence.
And nowhere did I use circular logic and nowhere did I rely on 'he says, she says'. God knows where you got that from.
"which tends to be the line of people putting forward conspiracy theories" is, whether you like it or not, an ad hominem argument based on what "he said."
Saying that "In everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely" is either ad hominem (Leon is in your view one of these people) or irrelevant (he is not.)
I note you dodge the question of what your evidence free occupation actually is.
I'm sorry this is really nonsense.
a) Are you really suggesting that stating that there are people putting forward conspiracy theories are not basing them on evidence is at all controversial. It is not an ad hominem attack and I notice you regularly accuse people of making such attacks when they are not, but are attacking the argument.
b) Similarly saying in everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely is also a non controversial statement and also not an ad hominem attack. Note the word 'we' and 'masses of people' which rather gives the game away that it wasn't a personal attack.
c) Leon is not one of these people nor is he irrelevant, but even he would admit he does come out with conspiracy theories. It is his trademark for goodness sake. Have you read many of his posts on aliens?
d) I didn't answer the question about the job as it is irrelevant whether I do an evidence based job at all. The point is many people do believe things not based upon evidence (religion, astrology, gut feelings, etc, etc) and scientist when researching stuff by and large do base their research on evidence. And that is the point and the only point being made.
e) FYI in terms of my job, I am retired. I ran my own business organising large organisations into commercial pressure groups, before that I worked for one of the largest computer companies and before that I worked for one of the largest consultancies. My degree is in Mathematics and I specialised in Logic, so I do rather know whether I am applying a circular argument or whether I am arguing a statement, stating a fact or making a personal attack thank you very much.
You must have dozed off in a few of the lectures, then. Your bizarre claim that scientists have privileged access to the concept of evidence is ad hominem in its purest form, the Platonic ideal of ad hominem: Never mind the ARGUMENT, concentrate on the fact that the MAN ADVANCING IT is a SCIENTIST, do you hear?
OK you are now just making stuff up. At no point did I say 'scientists have a privileged access to the concept of evidence'. Where the hell did you get that from? However what I did say (paraphrasing) is that scientists tend to be more evidenced based than astrologers, people who have gut feelings, people who believe in conspiracies. And if that is not blindingly obvious to you, then you are a lost cause.
Also at no point did I say you should concentrate on the man advancing the argument and not the argument. Again you are just making that up as well.
Please stop putting words into my mouth that I did not say.
One wonders if you have taken a bet as to how many times you can post 'ad hominem' today.
"At no point did I say 'scientists have a privileged access to the concept of evidence'. Where the hell did you get that from?"
"Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population."
Do you have that multiple personality thing going on?
"The Pentagon is considering a Boeing proposal to supply Ukraine with [the 150 km range] Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) ... It combines the GBU-39 SDB with the M26 rocket motor ... GLSDB could be delivered as early as spring 2023." https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyPlopsky/status/1597162415405531136
Uses stockpiled components, so plenty available, and they are cheap.
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1597184943607595015
The UK's House of Commons Committee produced a report today that urges Gov to *get serious* on semiconductor sovereignty *right now*:
"The UK is particularly exposed to future disruption in global supplies of semis and is falling behind other govs in mitigating such risks."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2022/11/28/souness-keane-itv-exerts-early-authority-bbc/
Absolutely bullshit....Souness and Keane shouting at each about a directive from FIFA they don't understand is not top notch football coverage.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyPlopsky/status/1597162415405531136
Uses stockpiled components, so plenty available, and they are cheap.
Which is more likely? Frankly doubt we will ever know. I certainly don't trust any evidence that has been "collected" by either the chinese goverment nor the scientists like Daczak and Fauci who were heavily involved in the Wuhan lab.
https://twitter.com/JamesL1927/status/1596953174337851395?s=20&t=n-UuCc7--2nKhRudPfCagA
On the other hand, "the whole thing about not having a clue about why she should be president other than being a woman" is just sexist nonsense.
First outlets to publish WikiLeaks material, including the Guardian, come together to oppose prosecution
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/nov/28/media-groups-urge-us-drop-julian-assange-charges
”We therefore have to make divergence work. We need to push ahead with the scrapping of EU laws – a project now being held up by civil servants who, though they won’t say so, want an incoming Labour government to agree to dynamic alignment with Brussels (ie adopting whatever future laws the EU passes). We should sign trade deals that comply with WTO rules, some of which are directly in conflict with EU practice, especially in agri-foods, where Brussels imposes numerous unscientific bans on protectionist grounds. We should cut taxes.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/26/brexit-should-have-gone-swiss-now-have-no-option-go-singaporean/
Why should the vast majority of biz who don't export have to obey the rules of a foreign power? Bonkers.
I salute your indefatigability etc.
On reflection, though, as we'd expect it to be an intermediary animal (most likely a pangolin), it does dent the hypothesis a bit, unless the lab routinely imported such intermediary animals to search for viruses in those. Dented rather than broken, though, as that's not entirely implausible for them to do that. Either way (diverted from coming into lab to coming into market, or from the lab picking out potential such animals from the normal pipeline to the market).
If it is legal, then the police presence, if any, is surely there to keep an eye on them and discourage illegal behaviour and also to discourage any motorists from doing dangerous overtaking.
I'm not particularly in favour of this form of action, but I see it hard how to make this illegal without preventing any protests walking down streets. If it's legal, then what else should the police be doing?
ETA: That's the legal loophole, surely. Standing still with banners is obstructing the highway. Progressing along the highway is, as far as I can see, legal.
a) Are you really suggesting that stating that there are people putting forward conspiracy theories are not basing them on evidence is at all controversial. It is not an ad hominem attack and I notice you regularly accuse people of making such attacks when they are not, but are attacking the argument.
b) Similarly saying in everyday life we jump to conclusions all the time and there are masses of people out there who just ignore evidence completely is also a non controversial statement and also not an ad hominem attack. Note the word 'we' and 'masses of people' which rather gives the game away that it wasn't a personal attack.
c) Leon is not one of these people nor is he irrelevant, but even he would admit he does come out with conspiracy theories. It is his trademark for goodness sake. Have you read many of his posts on aliens?
d) I didn't answer the question about the job as it is irrelevant whether I do an evidence based job at all. The point is many people do believe things not based upon evidence (religion, astrology, gut feelings, etc, etc) and scientist when researching stuff by and large do base their research on evidence. And that is the point and the only point being made.
e) FYI in terms of my job, I am retired. I ran my own business organising large organisations into commercial pressure groups, before that I worked for one of the largest computer companies and before that I worked for one of the largest consultancies. My degree is in Mathematics and I specialised in Logic, so I do rather know whether I am applying a circular argument or whether I am arguing a statement, stating a fact or making a personal attack thank you very much.
Edit: especially when you have an alternative. If you were just walking somewhere you wouldn't be in the road, and surely they can't claim that they're not being wilfully disruptive?
I fully accept the protestors are being cute here, but I both think it is legal and hard to make illegal without unintended consequences. Fule protest trucker go-slows were also legal, too, for the same reason, I think.
I'm regularly stopped from progressing at my pace, until I can overtake slower moving bodies travelling at their own pace. If I'm on a national speed limit single carriageway road and have to overtake a cyclist or horse then I don't expect them to be travelling at 60mph just because I would like to.
If the pedestrians are making themselves impossible to overtake, because they're walking astride carrying banners etc to block the entire carriageway so nobody can overtake them, then that's when it may cross the line, but IANAL.
This is not really much different to the cycling club peloton taking up the whole carriageway in one direction.
The state could pass a law criminalising walking on the road unless there's no alternative, but it hasn't AFAIK done so, so all that is not forbidden is lawful.
That they're deliberately trying to inconvenience others possibly makes them dicks, but not criminals, unlike those who were sitting down which was against the law.
#Chinese government drone spraying toxic chemicals to disinfect the air and shouting:
''To all residents, close your Windows now!...'
https://twitter.com/theinformantofc/status/1597072453532266497
China seems to use all those distopian novels / films as inspiration rather than warning.
And they're not obstructing the passage, they're just slowing them down, not illegal outside of motorways. Would be illegal to pull this stunt on the M25.
Now he has a lifetime gig making our laws and we can't get rid of him.
Being slowed down is not an obstruction. Its illegal to walk on motorways, but not regular roads.
Rule 1
Pavements and footways (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided.
Rule 5
Organised walks or parades involving large groups of people walking along a road should use a pavement if available; if one is not available, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35
But i don't believe there is any enforcement for not following it like there is in the US. However the police are enabling this, rather than trying to minimise it.
'should' be used. If backed up by law it would be 'must' be used.
Highway code uses "should" for "guidance" and "must" for law.
Since that says should, it is not a matter of law, but of guidance. People are free to break guidance without breaking the law, as we all know from Covid.
These clowns really are the govts useful idiots.
The mail seems to be in a right rage
https://twitter.com/bphillipsonmp/status/1597162718951530497?s=46&t=nVF4PMeSwYGWzFdMWpvHtw
There is a further Kim on the bench if needed.
The Supreme Court has ruled that when judging under s. 137 a protest it is a balancing act between the right to protest and the requirement not to obstruct the roads. Even sitting down can be lawful, if the protest excuse is deemed to outweigh the obstruction but the courts have ruled that the balance should be struck based on multiple factors including how long the road was blocked for.
If the protest is walking, it might be inconvenient, but its almost certainly lawful.
When we had storm Arwen in the North is barely raised a murmur on the national news unlike other storms.
The Police trying to enforce guidance is what leads to the mess of the Police overreaching with Covid seeing how long people have been exercising for and other nonsense.
Guidance is not law.
As a northerner (by adoption) I approve*
*or at least, disapprove less than if this was in my road. Although even then, a bit of slowing down of traffic outside the house would not be entirely unwelcome
It will push up the fees for hard working parents some of whom will then be forced to send their kids to state schools so it ends up costing the government more.
If they're going to be gone after, then there's a lot more charities that seek to exploit charitable status to make money that could be gone after too.
Thing is, if this is legal (it's at least not clear that it is illegal) then the sensible thing seems to be for the police to escort and discourage other illegal behaviour from irate motorists. A driver might be tempted to tear past a protestor in a tiny gap in oncoming traffic, but less likely to do that with the plod plodding along on the outside.
If you're breaking the law in another way, eg assaulting someone while doing so, it ceases to be lawful protest. But if you're not, then it falls under the "reasonable excuse" proviso of the law.
Its circular to say its not lawful because they're on the road, therefore don't have an excuse, so shouldn't be on the road. Protest is lawful, and is a protected excuse, but the excuse must be balanced against other factors by the law.
https://shop.ritter-sport.co.uk/
On protests, I believe that if you want to march to Trafalgar Square to protest about or support something or other (and I understand there are such protests/support marches on many weekends), then I believe you need a permit. ie five hundred people can't just form up at the Hard Rock Cafe and march down Piccadilly under banners to Trafalgar Square.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/28/matt-hancock-was-meant-to-fail-on-im-a-celebrity-heres-what-went-so-horribly-wrong
You have to assume this worked in his favour. The bigger personalities rose to the surface and hogged the airtime, edging closer to elimination just because people remembered they existed. His people will hail third place as a wild victory, but in reality it’s just the same as Dean coming third on Big Brother 2. Both hid in plain sight until people realised they hadn’t yet been voted out.
Unlike Big Brother, you vote to keep people in I'm a Celebrity.
Where does it say you must not do so on that link? Again, remembering that should is not law as you and I have both said, so rule 163 (overtaking) is guidance not law.
Rule 165 (overtaking) is law, but doesn't seem relevant.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/63778466
The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6 provides exemption for the provision of education, vocational training and closely-related goods and services.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130#section1
Charities pay VAT.
National Grid's system operator said it may activate its Demand Flexibility Service (DFS), which is designed to avoid blackouts, on Tuesday evening to reduce strain on the electricity grid.
The scheme sees households, which are signed up for the initiative, paid to not use things like electric ovens, dishwashers and tumble driers between certain hours.
It is the first line of defence in the event that peak evening demand exceeds supply over the coming winter.
https://news.sky.com/story/power-blackout-prevention-scheme-could-be-used-for-first-time-tomorrow-evening-12757278
The former friends were the subject of a rift when it was alleged that Terry had been in a relationship with Bridge’s partner, Vanessa Perroncel, in 2009, with the story being published the following year by The News of the World.
The newspaper later issued an apology for the story, publishing Perroncel’s claims that it was “untrue”. Nevertheless, the two former friends have never reconciled with Bridge refusing to shake Terry’s hand in the Premier League pre-match “Fair Play” handshakes on more than one occasion.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2022/11/27/exclusive-john-terry-put-qatar-hotel-wayne-bridge/
https://mobile.twitter.com/mattsteinglass/status/1597154761618300929
Extremely troubling ruling by the European Court of Justice will be welcomed by corrupt oligarchs everywhere. They can hide their ownership of shell companies again, claiming “privacy” rights. via @FT
When I finally saw them, there were about half-a dozen marchers, and probably twenty or thirty police. I don't think l I saw a single protestor.
Also, I bumped into an Orange march in Liverpool a few years back. They all looked so effing glum. They need to put some happy juice into their orange...
Salted almonds are the best one. Closely followed by marzipan. The plain bars not so much, as then you find out that it's quite cheap chocolate.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1597089807171485696
Meanwhile in Russia: the host and his guest concur that Ukraine should be erased off the map and even the memory that it existed should be destroyed. The host says that Russia will always be an empire and being in a state of war is only natural for any empire of Russia's size.
The protests will become no big deal which is either good or bad depending upon your point of view.
Also at no point did I say you should concentrate on the man advancing the argument and not the argument. Again you are just making that up as well.
Please stop putting words into my mouth that I did not say.
One wonders if you have taken a bet as to how many times you can post 'ad hominem' today.
*Checks bar*
50% cocoa solids minimum isn't too bad.
It's no 70%+ Lindt but was nice enough.
Scott Borgerson, 46, who married Maxwell, 60, in secret in 2016 and ended the relationship over the phone when she was in jail awaiting trial, has ignored her requests to pay a $900,000 legal bill and a further $1 million to challenge her conviction, according to The Sun.
Until the money is transferred her legal team cannot work on the appeal against her 20-year prison sentence for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender and financier who killed himself in jail.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ghislaine-maxwells-appeal-at-risk-as-husband-refuses-to-pay-8vqdv3v2k
"Scientists tend to rely on evidence so don't generally have as much clouded judgement compared to the general population."
Do you have that multiple personality thing going on?