Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland
Don't let facts get in the way of racism,
@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling
The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism
Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic
Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.
No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.
Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.
And yet again you are moved to defend your fellow Nat, come what may, and without a blink of shame
Perhaps because you share Stuart Dickson’s anti-English racism? But you are more domesticated, so you don’t let it show. He is feral. Gone to savagery in the wilds of Skane
On this occasion seems more like TUD is attacking you, rather than actually defending SD, who is obviously another idiot.
Well, I’ve just asked TUD if @StuartDickson is actually a racist. He seems close to admitting it, finally. The big question of the morning. Is @StuartDickson a racist
Let’s see what @Theuniondivvie says. Whether he can - belatedly - admit it
I suspect he isn't. I suspect you are.
Clear enough?
You just can’t do it, can you? It’s like there’s some short circuit in your wizened Nat brain. “A fellow Nat - defend defend defend”. The hive mind at work
If @StuartDickson came out and said “och, let’s kill all the English firstborn” you’d first ignore it, then you’d say “what about HYUFD’s tanks” then you’d slink off the site for a few hours, leaving a trail of tartan slime, hoping that when you returned the argument might have moved on
Unedifying. Tut
You may be surprised to hear that you're first person in a long list on here that I feel no need to edify.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started. As well as having Faith and big supporter of CoE but also attend services outside CoE, I am also a big fan of history - but there is nothing I’ve seen that sheds light on Jesus youth before his ministry, and not much historical Jesus outside of the Bible even of his ministry. The first bit of Bible written is Paul’s letters from Greek Islands where he is helping non Jews realise how important Jesus is to everyone, and this was more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified by the Jewish leaders and Roman Empire.
But to build on what you said Stu - Uncle Joseph is big in Jesus life especially all what he does after the crucifixion, and Uncle Joseph was a big political figure on council, and who he represented likely sheds light onto which sect Jesus belonged too.
Sects. That’s got your attention. It’s important to remember there’s sectarian disagreements Jesus is a part of. Hence the incidence you mentioned, and much later Jewish leaders wanting him executed by Romans.
Also I read something that through his mothers side Jesus was close to Royalty.
If you are interested in more I can recommend AN Wilson biography of Jesus.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't know why it took me 68 years to think of that question.
There is no “mystery” about Jesus Christ’s early life. He was learning the tin trade with his merchant uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, hence the Son of God’s trips to Cornwall, as limned in William Blake’s Jerusalem. Next
Can you point to any historical text which says that?
Do you have any text that says Joseph of arimanthia is actually his uncle not his sect leader?
Are you looking to start a debate between value of aural history v written texts we must consider were naturally biased, not gospel, such as Norse texts started having Mediterranean Christian Martyrs put in after conversion?
No, no and << checks notes >> no
The last no, actually why not? Why not take a note of that thought? Anyone saying what you said about Jesus in Cornwall being untrue can’t know that for certain. We get a lot of our history from documents written by Christians. Certainly after the the council of Nicaea and the arrival of Popes, they took a dim view of the what they saw as heresy that went on before that. A Christian monk on UK during Dark Ages who wrote down aural traditions like Jesus in Cornwall might have had his parchment ripped up and himself put on the naughty step. 1200 years later there are still aural histories for Blake to hear, which is interesting I suppose as it was not just in Cornwall but in the med too the same aural stories.
Sects. I think go goes back to what I said about sects. What Joseph of Aramathea gets up to might be a bone of contention to rival sect leaders and their followers.
I was being flippant. I’m still a bit sickly so unable to take on a vast theological debate. Sorry!
But in brief I agree with you. WHO KNOWS. I don’t 100% dismiss the Jesus in Cornwall mythos. 99% sure. But not 100%
I’ve spent much of my Knapper’s Gazette life writing about Gobekli Tepe, and watching the skeptics get confounded time and again. So I know that sometimes the most unlikely ideas or discoveries CAN be true
I think its quite likely that some people moved round the world for trade, and adventure, a lot more than is commonly supposed. Its certainly possible for someone from Judea to have visited the British Isles. After all, lots of Romans did.
Maybe not enough evidence of Jesus, but I think enough evidence to convince me Joseph of Aramathea had a tie in with Glastonbury and died there. If he was a minority sect leader and there was violence at home he was probably safer here.
I also know a bit about History of Elizabeth the first, and how it ties in here is how the politicians in her fathers and own court actually used history, with a few modifications, for important tie in with historical figures.
The Holy Roman Empire too also felt it important to tie in with both Julius Caesar and Saint Peter!
The question I am asking is, is it from these politicians in courts doing that we get our history we are taught in schools today?
If you can get beyond the paywall, this is an interesting article about the Jesus-in-Cornwall myth. A journalist actually went out and investigated
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
Last year, lots of Olympians were omitted but at least there was the excuse there were a lot of them. Who has been left out this year? No Tyson Fury who has twice defended his world heavyweight belt. No Rory McIlroy who has won three tournaments and reached world number one. Two of the others have done nothing this year they've not done previously, so that can't be it. Half this year's nominees aren't even famous in their own households and if they were, maybe the BBC would have noticed one of them has retired.
Beth Mead deserves to win, and will win.
Ronnie O Sullivan deserves to win, snooker is the hardest of games and he has stayed at the top for over 30 years.
Meghan Markle is a very privileged individual who had the choice to marry into a goldfish bowl and now makes money out of moaning about it after the event.
I am however, sorry she had a hard time, on a human level. I wouldn’t wish being in the RF on my worst enemy.
Personally I wish the media would stop talking about her. Let her get on with her life un-harassed , which is of course what she wanted, right?
Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland
Don't let facts get in the way of racism,
@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling
The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism
Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic
Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.
No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.
Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.
"Yeabutwhaddabout..."
Since the person in question is participating in this particular whiny collective prolapse I don't think it really counts as whataboutery. As I may have mentioned I enjoy collecting hypocrisies, racists whining about racism is an oldie but a goody.
There are several PB posters broadly on the left of centre, "woke remainer" side of politics who find the Anglophobia (mostly dogwhistle but occasionally blatant) very insidious. Collective stereotyping of a group of people based on their geographical location is a bad thing full stop.
It is counterproductive. I have some sympathy for the independence cause and if I were living North of the border I would probably be a swing voter on the issue. But then I see this stuff and wonder if this is just Brexit-style identity politics. Blaming the English ("Westminster") rather than Johnny foreigner ("Brussels").
Crocodile tears. You were gleefully defaming another pro-independence poster on the previous thread.
You’ll recall I was replying to your post about “English Gammons” and referring to someone who is professionally grumpy. Because he is indeed professionally grumpy.
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
Last year, lots of Olympians were omitted but at least there was the excuse there were a lot of them. Who has been left out this year? No Tyson Fury who has twice defended his world heavyweight belt. No Rory McIlroy who has won three tournaments and reached world number one. Two of the others have done nothing this year they've not done previously, so that can't be it. Half this year's nominees aren't even famous in their own households and if they were, maybe the BBC would have noticed one of them (Eve Muirhead) has retired.
Beth Mead deserves to win, and will win.
I can understand why the BBC might have a blind spot for Fury, not only his previous views on LGBT+ issues which caused a stir when he was nominated in 2015, but there is the minor issue of Daniel Kinahan connection.
You can't exactly give it the big'un about moral purity, LGBT+ rights, etc during the WC and refusing to show the opening and closing ceremonies on your main channel as a weird snub and then 2 days later nominate Fury with all that baggage (I could also see the BBC employees getting irate about it).
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
Last year, lots of Olympians were omitted but at least there was the excuse there were a lot of them. Who has been left out this year? No Tyson Fury who has twice defended his world heavyweight belt. No Rory McIlroy who has won three tournaments and reached world number one. Two of the others have done nothing this year they've not done previously, so that can't be it. Half this year's nominees aren't even famous in their own households and if they were, maybe the BBC would have noticed one of them (Eve Muirhead) has retired.
Beth Mead deserves to win, and will win.
Matt Fitzpatrick is as qualified as Emma Raducanu was last year.
People are going to die, there are no winners from this.
I mat have to sedate my father as he is furious at the profession putting lives at risk.
The issue is the farcical request for 19%, they'd have many, many more supporters at 7%. At 19% their fight looks ideologically driven against the Tories. There's no government who would agree to those terms, not Tory nor Labour.
I saw a clip with Ian Hislop the other day, where he was saying the government has forgotten how strikes work since the 70s and 80s. Back then, unions went on strike, demanded whatever per cent, unions and government negotiated and they came to agreement.
Now, the unions have gone on strike, demanding whatever per cent, and the government are just saying ‘we can’t afford that, but we’re not negotiating, independent pay review, burble burble, wibble wibble’.
So, to me, there are two possible intentions at work. Either, the government does indeed have institutional amnesia - which I doubt - or they are happy to see the strikes because they see a double benefit: culture war bollocks, divide and conquer and continuing to run the NHS down so they can say it’s broken, we’re going to privatise it.
So they’re happy for people to die, for the country to continue to have shockingly bad healthcare for god knows how long, to pursue their ideological goals.
They’re a government of sociopaths. They figure they’ve got two years left in power, they’re intent on doing as much damage as they can. They’re happy to damage the country with their ideological Brexit, they’re happy to damage the country with their ideological desire to get rid of the NHS. And there’s the happy side effect of salting the ground so badly for Labour that, if they win next time, they’ll just be clearing up the Tory bin fire they’ll be bequeathed with.
This shower of shite are pound shop Trumps, gaslighting the public while they and their mates grift the country to the bone.
BIB: Incredibly unlikely. As you surely know, the party with the biggest history of privatising the NHS is not currently in government.
What about, what about, what about, burble burble, wibble, wibble.
The NHS’s performance has declined dramatically since 2010. That isn’t an accident. There are multiple reasons, not least massive bed blocking because social care is so woeful. Of course the government can’t seriously address that cos it would mean taking money from their core voters. Can’t shrink the inheritance can we?
This government wants US-style inequalities. They want terrible public services, they want health insurance not free at the point of use healthcare, they don’t give a flying fuck about ordinary people. They only care about getting richer and making sure their taxes don’t go to improving the lives of their perceived inferiors - the poor, the feckless, the scroungers - in the slightest way. Yet they wrap themselves in the the flag and gibber on about bollocks - sovereignty! Immigrants! - to deceive the gullible amd incurious and to give ‘legitimate concerns’ talking points for the misanthropic and venal. Trumpian.
Remind me please, when May did propose to do something about social care and put it in the 2017 manifesto was it not parties of the left calling it a dementia tax and basically making a huge fuss about making people pay for their own care
Meghan Markle is a very privileged individual who had the choice to marry into a goldfish bowl and now makes money out of moaning about it after the event.
I am however, sorry she had a hard time, on a human level. I wouldn’t wish being in the RF on my worst enemy.
Personally I wish the media would stop talking about her. Let her get on with her life un-harassed , which is of course what she wanted, right?
But then they would need to find someone else to talk about - and likely wouldn’t sell as many papers.
Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland
Don't let facts get in the way of racism,
@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling
The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism
Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic
Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.
No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.
Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.
"Yeabutwhaddabout..."
Since the person in question is participating in this particular whiny collective prolapse I don't think it really counts as whataboutery. As I may have mentioned I enjoy collecting hypocrisies, racists whining about racism is an oldie but a goody.
There are several PB posters broadly on the left of centre, "woke remainer" side of politics who find the Anglophobia (mostly dogwhistle but occasionally blatant) very insidious. Collective stereotyping of a group of people based on their geographical location is a bad thing full stop.
It is counterproductive. I have some sympathy for the independence cause and if I were living North of the border I would probably be a swing voter on the issue. But then I see this stuff and wonder if this is just Brexit-style identity politics. Blaming the English ("Westminster") rather than Johnny foreigner ("Brussels").
Crocodile tears. You were gleefully defaming another pro-independence poster on the previous thread.
You’ll recall I was replying to your post about “English Gammons” and referring to someone who is professionally grumpy. Because he is indeed professionally grumpy.
Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland
Don't let facts get in the way of racism,
@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling
The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism
Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic
Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.
No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.
Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.
Is this the same guy who said the muslims in India have got it coming to them because of what a (muslim) invader allegedly did 800 years ago, while quoting extensively from Hindutva propaganda?
Imagine if a poster said the christians in Syria deserve to be treated badly by islamic state because of what crusaders did hundreds of years ago.
Some kinds of bigotry are more acceptable than others.
Some people will desperately try to blame the victims of any anti-western group.
I recall an attempt to blame the Yazidi when ISIS started massacring them - a claim that since they had sided with the American invasion of Iraq it was their own fault.
This was, of course garbage - the Yazidi had kept their heads down as they’ve done for time immemorial and didn’t take any side.
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
Last year, lots of Olympians were omitted but at least there was the excuse there were a lot of them. Who has been left out this year? No Tyson Fury who has twice defended his world heavyweight belt. No Rory McIlroy who has won three tournaments and reached world number one. Two of the others have done nothing this year they've not done previously, so that can't be it. Half this year's nominees aren't even famous in their own households and if they were, maybe the BBC would have noticed one of them (Eve Muirhead) has retired.
Beth Mead deserves to win, and will win.
Matt Fitzpatrick is as qualified as Emma Raducanu was last year.
Yes, Matt Fitzpatrick won the US Open golf. Looking at this year's nominees, it is hard to discern any rationale for the choices.
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
And they seemed to have picked sports people with actual personalities, this time.
I remember when they gave it to Nigel Mansell… great driver, but no one would accuse him of having a bubbling presence in the room….
This again?
"Personality" was always only the name of the award, not a criterion for judging it.
I know - but it was extremely funny when they gave an award with that name to someone who had none.
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
Last year, lots of Olympians were omitted but at least there was the excuse there were a lot of them. Who has been left out this year? No Tyson Fury who has twice defended his world heavyweight belt. No Rory McIlroy who has won three tournaments and reached world number one. Two of the others have done nothing this year they've not done previously, so that can't be it. Half this year's nominees aren't even famous in their own households and if they were, maybe the BBC would have noticed one of them (Eve Muirhead) has retired.
Beth Mead deserves to win, and will win.
Matt Fitzpatrick is as qualified as Emma Raducanu was last year.
Yes, Matt Fitzpatrick won the US Open golf. Looking at this year's nominees, it is hard to discern any rationale for the choices.
"Beth Mead and as short as possible a list of people who won't be allowed to win"?
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
Last year, lots of Olympians were omitted but at least there was the excuse there were a lot of them. Who has been left out this year? No Tyson Fury who has twice defended his world heavyweight belt. No Rory McIlroy who has won three tournaments and reached world number one. Two of the others have done nothing this year they've not done previously, so that can't be it. Half this year's nominees aren't even famous in their own households and if they were, maybe the BBC would have noticed one of them (Eve Muirhead) has retired.
Beth Mead deserves to win, and will win.
Fury made his feelings clear last time he was nominated, so I don't blame the BBC for not bothering with him.
Why should retiring discount someone from SPoTY? Steve Redgrave won it in 2000 despite having retired. Perhaps curling and snooker shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as other sports (games?), but I think it's fine.
The only one that I think you have a point on is Stokes v McIlrory. Arguably the men's cricket team should win team of the year (they won't, of course and I doubt Bazza will get coach of the year either), but it has been a team effort and as good as Stokes has been as captain, I'm not sure it's enough for him to be nominated. Golf is all about the majors, but perhaps shouldn't be and Rory had a fantastic year.
EDIT: I can't really comment on the athlete. How strong was the field at the Worlds?
It’s chilling to realize that racism is so powerful that the royal family would ruin what is for now the one opportunity they were given to reach the hearts and minds of the very people who make their lives possible. They had a gift: In Meghan Markle they had a woman who is intelligent, poised and largely able to live in the public eye, play the role of princess and give the best of herself in service of something bigger than herself.
… Harry and Meghan both say they would have worked on behalf of the monarchy for the rest of their lives if the royal family extended them a modicum of consideration and safety. They wanted the royal family to embrace Meghan’s role in Harry’s life and to use it — to use her — to the crown’s advantage. Instead, the family did the exact opposite time and time again.
The Sussexes were incredibly popular in Britain, in Australia, in South Africa and throughout the Commonwealth. Had they stayed in the monarchy, they may have become more and more of a threat.
I actually saw a bit of the Netflix doco last night (Mrs Anabob is well into the royals, loves the soap opera, fashion and the goss).
It wasn’t what I was expecting at all! It was actually pretty good, interesting even.
Clearly it’s very much from Meg’s standpoint but nevertheless is far superior to most of the cap doffing royalist trash that pollutes the telly.
No it was a whingefest from their $10 million mansion in sunny California paid for by Netflix millions directed at Americans while Brits face the cold and rising cost of living. Meghan really doesn't care that much about us or the Commonwealth. She cares about becoming A list in the US, witness her squeal of delight when Beyonce tweeted her.
The idea they would ever have moved to New Zealand or Canada over California or New York City (where Harry was filmed in a pal's apartment in Manhattan) is laughable
Out of interest have you been watching it? I haven't and I don't know anyone who has. Is it popular?
We have watched all of it bar the last episode, it was clearly scripted and orchestrated by Meghan, Harry is just her puppet she used for social advancement.
In a few years once he is no longer useful she probably dumps him for a tech billionaire rather than end up a latter day Wallis Simpson
You're a bit like the Daily Mail online on this. Every day they have an article saying "Why We Should Ignore Meghan and Harry!". This is followed by another 30 articles about, er, Harry and Meghan.
But the comparison is strikingly apt. Edward and Mrs Simpson were massive news in the English speaking world for years - as Harry and Meghan are now. But then the world moved on - war! - and their glamour faded fast. And their salience fell away
The same will happen to H&M
And Primark too, probably.
Primary will outlive nearly all the other high street brands - Hapsburgs, Hohenzollern….
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
And they seemed to have picked sports people with actual personalities, this time.
I remember when they gave it to Nigel Mansell… great driver, but no one would accuse him of having a bubbling presence in the room….
This again?
"Personality" was always only the name of the award, not a criterion for judging it.
I know - but it was extremely funny when they gave an award with that name to someone who had none.
Lack of "personality" was his personality, right? Just like Steve "Interesting" Davis.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started. As well as having Faith and big supporter of CoE but also attend services outside CoE, I am also a big fan of history - but there is nothing I’ve seen that sheds light on Jesus youth before his ministry, and not much historical Jesus outside of the Bible even of his ministry. The first bit of Bible written is Paul’s letters from Greek Islands where he is helping non Jews realise how important Jesus is to everyone, and this was more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified by the Jewish leaders and Roman Empire.
But to build on what you said Stu - Uncle Joseph is big in Jesus life especially all what he does after the crucifixion, and Uncle Joseph was a big political figure on council, and who he represented likely sheds light onto which sect Jesus belonged too.
Sects. That’s got your attention. It’s important to remember there’s sectarian disagreements Jesus is a part of. Hence the incidence you mentioned, and much later Jewish leaders wanting him executed by Romans.
Also I read something that through his mothers side Jesus was close to Royalty.
If you are interested in more I can recommend AN Wilson biography of Jesus.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't know why it took me 68 years to think of that question.
There is no “mystery” about Jesus Christ’s early life. He was learning the tin trade with his merchant uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, hence the Son of God’s trips to Cornwall, as limned in William Blake’s Jerusalem. Next
Can you point to any historical text which says that?
Do you have any text that says Joseph of arimanthia is actually his uncle not his sect leader?
Are you looking to start a debate between value of aural history v written texts we must consider were naturally biased, not gospel, such as Norse texts started having Mediterranean Christian Martyrs put in after conversion?
No, no and << checks notes >> no
The last no, actually why not? Why not take a note of that thought? Anyone saying what you said about Jesus in Cornwall being untrue can’t know that for certain. We get a lot of our history from documents written by Christians. Certainly after the the council of Nicaea and the arrival of Popes, they took a dim view of the what they saw as heresy that went on before that. A Christian monk on UK during Dark Ages who wrote down aural traditions like Jesus in Cornwall might have had his parchment ripped up and himself put on the naughty step. 1200 years later there are still aural histories for Blake to hear, which is interesting I suppose as it was not just in Cornwall but in the med too the same aural stories.
Sects. I think go goes back to what I said about sects. What Joseph of Aramathea gets up to might be a bone of contention to rival sect leaders and their followers.
I was being flippant. I’m still a bit sickly so unable to take on a vast theological debate. Sorry!
But in brief I agree with you. WHO KNOWS. I don’t 100% dismiss the Jesus in Cornwall mythos. 99% sure. But not 100%
I’ve spent much of my Knapper’s Gazette life writing about Gobekli Tepe, and watching the skeptics get confounded time and again. So I know that sometimes the most unlikely ideas or discoveries CAN be true
If Jesus was sent to Earth to redeem sinners, Cornwall would be an obvious place to visit. P.S. For avoidance of doubt, please don’t read this post as anti Cornish racism.
Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland
Don't let facts get in the way of racism,
@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling
The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism
Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic
Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.
No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.
Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.
"Yeabutwhaddabout..."
Since the person in question is participating in this particular whiny collective prolapse I don't think it really counts as whataboutery. As I may have mentioned I enjoy collecting hypocrisies, racists whining about racism is an oldie but a goody.
There are several PB posters broadly on the left of centre, "woke remainer" side of politics who find the Anglophobia (mostly dogwhistle but occasionally blatant) very insidious. Collective stereotyping of a group of people based on their geographical location is a bad thing full stop.
It is counterproductive. I have some sympathy for the independence cause and if I were living North of the border I would probably be a swing voter on the issue. But then I see this stuff and wonder if this is just Brexit-style identity politics. Blaming the English ("Westminster") rather than Johnny foreigner ("Brussels").
Crocodile tears. You were gleefully defaming another pro-independence poster on the previous thread.
You’ll recall I was replying to your post about “English Gammons” and referring to someone who is professionally grumpy. Because he is indeed professionally grumpy.
You were equating him with a misogynist.
That is a fair challenge. Was a rhetorical point of course given the context but of course Clarkson is not a precise match for anyone on this site.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started. As well as having Faith and big supporter of CoE but also attend services outside CoE, I am also a big fan of history - but there is nothing I’ve seen that sheds light on Jesus youth before his ministry, and not much historical Jesus outside of the Bible even of his ministry. The first bit of Bible written is Paul’s letters from Greek Islands where he is helping non Jews realise how important Jesus is to everyone, and this was more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified by the Jewish leaders and Roman Empire.
But to build on what you said Stu - Uncle Joseph is big in Jesus life especially all what he does after the crucifixion, and Uncle Joseph was a big political figure on council, and who he represented likely sheds light onto which sect Jesus belonged too.
Sects. That’s got your attention. It’s important to remember there’s sectarian disagreements Jesus is a part of. Hence the incidence you mentioned, and much later Jewish leaders wanting him executed by Romans.
Also I read something that through his mothers side Jesus was close to Royalty.
If you are interested in more I can recommend AN Wilson biography of Jesus.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't know why it took me 68 years to think of that question.
There is no “mystery” about Jesus Christ’s early life. He was learning the tin trade with his merchant uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, hence the Son of God’s trips to Cornwall, as limned in William Blake’s Jerusalem. Next
Can you point to any historical text which says that?
Do you have any text that says Joseph of arimanthia is actually his uncle not his sect leader?
Are you looking to start a debate between value of aural history v written texts we must consider were naturally biased, not gospel, such as Norse texts started having Mediterranean Christian Martyrs put in after conversion?
No, no and << checks notes >> no
The last no, actually why not? Why not take a note of that thought? Anyone saying what you said about Jesus in Cornwall being untrue can’t know that for certain. We get a lot of our history from documents written by Christians. Certainly after the the council of Nicaea and the arrival of Popes, they took a dim view of the what they saw as heresy that went on before that. A Christian monk on UK during Dark Ages who wrote down aural traditions like Jesus in Cornwall might have had his parchment ripped up and himself put on the naughty step. 1200 years later there are still aural histories for Blake to hear, which is interesting I suppose as it was not just in Cornwall but in the med too the same aural stories.
Sects. I think go goes back to what I said about sects. What Joseph of Aramathea gets up to might be a bone of contention to rival sect leaders and their followers.
I was being flippant. I’m still a bit sickly so unable to take on a vast theological debate. Sorry!
But in brief I agree with you. WHO KNOWS. I don’t 100% dismiss the Jesus in Cornwall mythos. 99% sure. But not 100%
I’ve spent much of my Knapper’s Gazette life writing about Gobekli Tepe, and watching the skeptics get confounded time and again. So I know that sometimes the most unlikely ideas or discoveries CAN be true
If Jesus was sent to Earth to redeem sinners, Cornwall would be an obvious place to visit. P.S. For avoidance of doubt, please don’t read this post as anti Cornish racism.
He drove a months long campaign to intern muslims. He’s drooled over far-right reptiles more than Franco Fan. I don’t think anyone is accepting him as a neutral arbiter on race relations.
Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland
Don't let facts get in the way of racism,
@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling
The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism
Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic
Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.
No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.
Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.
"Yeabutwhaddabout..."
Since the person in question is participating in this particular whiny collective prolapse I don't think it really counts as whataboutery. As I may have mentioned I enjoy collecting hypocrisies, racists whining about racism is an oldie but a goody.
There are several PB posters broadly on the left of centre, "woke remainer" side of politics who find the Anglophobia (mostly dogwhistle but occasionally blatant) very insidious. Collective stereotyping of a group of people based on their geographical location is a bad thing full stop.
It is counterproductive. I have some sympathy for the independence cause and if I were living North of the border I would probably be a swing voter on the issue. But then I see this stuff and wonder if this is just Brexit-style identity politics. Blaming the English ("Westminster") rather than Johnny foreigner ("Brussels").
Crocodile tears. You were gleefully defaming another pro-independence poster on the previous thread.
You’ll recall I was replying to your post about “English Gammons” and referring to someone who is professionally grumpy. Because he is indeed professionally grumpy.
You were equating him with a misogynist.
That is a fair challenge. Was a rhetorical point of course given the context but of course Clarkson is not a precise match for anyone on this site.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started. As well as having Faith and big supporter of CoE but also attend services outside CoE, I am also a big fan of history - but there is nothing I’ve seen that sheds light on Jesus youth before his ministry, and not much historical Jesus outside of the Bible even of his ministry. The first bit of Bible written is Paul’s letters from Greek Islands where he is helping non Jews realise how important Jesus is to everyone, and this was more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified by the Jewish leaders and Roman Empire.
But to build on what you said Stu - Uncle Joseph is big in Jesus life especially all what he does after the crucifixion, and Uncle Joseph was a big political figure on council, and who he represented likely sheds light onto which sect Jesus belonged too.
Sects. That’s got your attention. It’s important to remember there’s sectarian disagreements Jesus is a part of. Hence the incidence you mentioned, and much later Jewish leaders wanting him executed by Romans.
Also I read something that through his mothers side Jesus was close to Royalty.
If you are interested in more I can recommend AN Wilson biography of Jesus.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't know why it took me 68 years to think of that question.
There is no “mystery” about Jesus Christ’s early life. He was learning the tin trade with his merchant uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, hence the Son of God’s trips to Cornwall, as limned in William Blake’s Jerusalem. Next
Can you point to any historical text which says that?
Do you have any text that says Joseph of arimanthia is actually his uncle not his sect leader?
Are you looking to start a debate between value of aural history v written texts we must consider were naturally biased, not gospel, such as Norse texts started having Mediterranean Christian Martyrs put in after conversion?
No, no and << checks notes >> no
The last no, actually why not? Why not take a note of that thought? Anyone saying what you said about Jesus in Cornwall being untrue can’t know that for certain. We get a lot of our history from documents written by Christians. Certainly after the the council of Nicaea and the arrival of Popes, they took a dim view of the what they saw as heresy that went on before that. A Christian monk on UK during Dark Ages who wrote down aural traditions like Jesus in Cornwall might have had his parchment ripped up and himself put on the naughty step. 1200 years later there are still aural histories for Blake to hear, which is interesting I suppose as it was not just in Cornwall but in the med too the same aural stories.
Sects. I think go goes back to what I said about sects. What Joseph of Aramathea gets up to might be a bone of contention to rival sect leaders and their followers.
I was being flippant. I’m still a bit sickly so unable to take on a vast theological debate. Sorry!
But in brief I agree with you. WHO KNOWS. I don’t 100% dismiss the Jesus in Cornwall mythos. 99% sure. But not 100%
I’ve spent much of my Knapper’s Gazette life writing about Gobekli Tepe, and watching the skeptics get confounded time and again. So I know that sometimes the most unlikely ideas or discoveries CAN be true
If Jesus was sent to Earth to redeem sinners, Cornwall would be an obvious place to visit. P.S. For avoidance of doubt, please don’t read this post as anti Cornish racism.
He drove a months long campaign to intern muslims. He’s drooled over far-right reptiles more than Franco Fan. I don’t think anyone is accepting him as a neutral arbiter on race relations.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started. As well as having Faith and big supporter of CoE but also attend services outside CoE, I am also a big fan of history - but there is nothing I’ve seen that sheds light on Jesus youth before his ministry, and not much historical Jesus outside of the Bible even of his ministry. The first bit of Bible written is Paul’s letters from Greek Islands where he is helping non Jews realise how important Jesus is to everyone, and this was more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified by the Jewish leaders and Roman Empire.
But to build on what you said Stu - Uncle Joseph is big in Jesus life especially all what he does after the crucifixion, and Uncle Joseph was a big political figure on council, and who he represented likely sheds light onto which sect Jesus belonged too.
Sects. That’s got your attention. It’s important to remember there’s sectarian disagreements Jesus is a part of. Hence the incidence you mentioned, and much later Jewish leaders wanting him executed by Romans.
Also I read something that through his mothers side Jesus was close to Royalty.
If you are interested in more I can recommend AN Wilson biography of Jesus.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't know why it took me 68 years to think of that question.
There is no “mystery” about Jesus Christ’s early life. He was learning the tin trade with his merchant uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, hence the Son of God’s trips to Cornwall, as limned in William Blake’s Jerusalem. Next
Can you point to any historical text which says that?
Do you have any text that says Joseph of arimanthia is actually his uncle not his sect leader?
Are you looking to start a debate between value of aural history v written texts we must consider were naturally biased, not gospel, such as Norse texts started having Mediterranean Christian Martyrs put in after conversion?
No, no and << checks notes >> no
The last no, actually why not? Why not take a note of that thought? Anyone saying what you said about Jesus in Cornwall being untrue can’t know that for certain. We get a lot of our history from documents written by Christians. Certainly after the the council of Nicaea and the arrival of Popes, they took a dim view of the what they saw as heresy that went on before that. A Christian monk on UK during Dark Ages who wrote down aural traditions like Jesus in Cornwall might have had his parchment ripped up and himself put on the naughty step. 1200 years later there are still aural histories for Blake to hear, which is interesting I suppose as it was not just in Cornwall but in the med too the same aural stories.
Sects. I think go goes back to what I said about sects. What Joseph of Aramathea gets up to might be a bone of contention to rival sect leaders and their followers.
I was being flippant. I’m still a bit sickly so unable to take on a vast theological debate. Sorry!
But in brief I agree with you. WHO KNOWS. I don’t 100% dismiss the Jesus in Cornwall mythos. 99% sure. But not 100%
I’ve spent much of my Knapper’s Gazette life writing about Gobekli Tepe, and watching the skeptics get confounded time and again. So I know that sometimes the most unlikely ideas or discoveries CAN be true
If Jesus was sent to Earth to redeem sinners, Cornwall would be an obvious place to visit. P.S. For avoidance of doubt, please don’t read this post as anti Cornish racism.
He drove a months long campaign to intern muslims. He’s drooled over far-right reptiles more than Franco Fan. I don’t think anyone is accepting him as a neutral arbiter on race relations.
@Leon is not the messiah. He’s a very naughty boy.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
- “Quite who will get the blame for what is happening hard to say at this stage but this is a real test for Sunak.”
A lot of politics is about picking the right allies and the right enemies. Sunak has chosen to ally himself with the devils and make enemies of the angels. That Starmer and Sunak are both inexperienced in this politics lark is becoming increasingly obvious.
Attitudes will change when.people die as a result of the strike.
- “Quite who will get the blame for what is happening hard to say at this stage but this is a real test for Sunak.”
A lot of politics is about picking the right allies and the right enemies. Sunak has chosen to ally himself with the devils and make enemies of the angels. That Starmer and Sunak are both inexperienced in this politics lark is becoming increasingly obvious.
Attitudes will change when.people die as a result of the strike Tory intransigence.
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
Last year, lots of Olympians were omitted but at least there was the excuse there were a lot of them. Who has been left out this year? No Tyson Fury who has twice defended his world heavyweight belt. No Rory McIlroy who has won three tournaments and reached world number one. Two of the others have done nothing this year they've not done previously, so that can't be it. Half this year's nominees aren't even famous in their own households and if they were, maybe the BBC would have noticed one of them (Eve Muirhead) has retired.
Beth Mead deserves to win, and will win.
Fury made his feelings clear last time he was nominated, so I don't blame the BBC for not bothering with him.
Why should retiring discount someone from SPoTY? Steve Redgrave won it in 2000 despite having retired. Perhaps curling and snooker shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as other sports (games?), but I think it's fine.
The only one that I think you have a point on is Stokes v McIlrory. Arguably the men's cricket team should win team of the year (they won't, of course and I doubt Bazza will get coach of the year either), but it has been a team effort and as good as Stokes has been as captain, I'm not sure it's enough for him to be nominated. Golf is all about the majors, but perhaps shouldn't be and Rory had a fantastic year.
EDIT: I can't really comment on the athlete. How strong was the field at the Worlds?
Team of the Year will probably be the Lionesses. The team that won the wheelchair rugby league world cup probably left it too late, as the BBC seemed to say it was decided last month.
Even dafter is the final three shortlist for Young SPotY. Jessica Gadirova is nominated for Young SPotY as well as main SPotY, and the other two, Sky Brown and Andrea Spendolini-Sirieix, are the 2021 and 2020 winners. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63779048
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started. As well as having Faith and big supporter of CoE but also attend services outside CoE, I am also a big fan of history - but there is nothing I’ve seen that sheds light on Jesus youth before his ministry, and not much historical Jesus outside of the Bible even of his ministry. The first bit of Bible written is Paul’s letters from Greek Islands where he is helping non Jews realise how important Jesus is to everyone, and this was more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified by the Jewish leaders and Roman Empire.
But to build on what you said Stu - Uncle Joseph is big in Jesus life especially all what he does after the crucifixion, and Uncle Joseph was a big political figure on council, and who he represented likely sheds light onto which sect Jesus belonged too.
Sects. That’s got your attention. It’s important to remember there’s sectarian disagreements Jesus is a part of. Hence the incidence you mentioned, and much later Jewish leaders wanting him executed by Romans.
Also I read something that through his mothers side Jesus was close to Royalty.
If you are interested in more I can recommend AN Wilson biography of Jesus.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't know why it took me 68 years to think of that question.
There is no “mystery” about Jesus Christ’s early life. He was learning the tin trade with his merchant uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, hence the Son of God’s trips to Cornwall, as limned in William Blake’s Jerusalem. Next
Can you point to any historical text which says that?
Do you have any text that says Joseph of arimanthia is actually his uncle not his sect leader?
Are you looking to start a debate between value of aural history v written texts we must consider were naturally biased, not gospel, such as Norse texts started having Mediterranean Christian Martyrs put in after conversion?
No, no and << checks notes >> no
The last no, actually why not? Why not take a note of that thought? Anyone saying what you said about Jesus in Cornwall being untrue can’t know that for certain. We get a lot of our history from documents written by Christians. Certainly after the the council of Nicaea and the arrival of Popes, they took a dim view of the what they saw as heresy that went on before that. A Christian monk on UK during Dark Ages who wrote down aural traditions like Jesus in Cornwall might have had his parchment ripped up and himself put on the naughty step. 1200 years later there are still aural histories for Blake to hear, which is interesting I suppose as it was not just in Cornwall but in the med too the same aural stories.
Sects. I think go goes back to what I said about sects. What Joseph of Aramathea gets up to might be a bone of contention to rival sect leaders and their followers.
I was being flippant. I’m still a bit sickly so unable to take on a vast theological debate. Sorry!
But in brief I agree with you. WHO KNOWS. I don’t 100% dismiss the Jesus in Cornwall mythos. 99% sure. But not 100%
I’ve spent much of my Knapper’s Gazette life writing about Gobekli Tepe, and watching the skeptics get confounded time and again. So I know that sometimes the most unlikely ideas or discoveries CAN be true
I think its quite likely that some people moved round the world for trade, and adventure, a lot more than is commonly supposed. Its certainly possible for someone from Judea to have visited the British Isles. After all, lots of Romans did.
Yes, but then most Romans weren’t from Rome, or had ever even been there. The genius of Rome is that instead of sacking the city or tribe next door and returning home, by a mixture of carrot and stick the elites in the places they conquered were given the chance to ‘become’ Romans.
- “Quite who will get the blame for what is happening hard to say at this stage but this is a real test for Sunak.”
A lot of politics is about picking the right allies and the right enemies. Sunak has chosen to ally himself with the devils and make enemies of the angels. That Starmer and Sunak are both inexperienced in this politics lark is becoming increasingly obvious.
Attitudes will change when.people die as a result of the strike Tory intransigence.
Corrected it for you.
I agree this feels more likely to rebound on the government than on the strikers.
The government are not winning the argument on pay restraint. This is largely because they have lost the high ground of at least being seen to be economically competent.
The fact the country has to go through another 18 months of this while the government slowly dies is very depressing.
Going to be boring SPOTY with little betting opportunity as will be Mead. Even though Stokes have been immense, he has won it before and all the push will be for Lioness winner.
365 have a winner without Mead market. Stokes 2/5, Ronnie 7/2, 10/1 bar.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
"ministers spotted a common refrain from those in Sage: any bad news from South Africa (such as faster transmission) was modelled and reported in an instant. But any good news – even hugely good news – was either ignored, or placed in the ‘too early to say’ category."
Worth remembering Starmer was pushing for a lockdown then too. It can be put in the "he'd be a shit PM" column.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
"ministers spotted a common refrain from those in Sage: any bad news from South Africa (such as faster transmission) was modelled and reported in an instant. But any good news – even hugely good news – was either ignored, or placed in the ‘too early to say’ category."
Worth remembering Starmer was pushing for a lockdown then too. It can be put in the "he'd be a shit PM" column.
There is such a thing as the precautionary principle. It's wise to take bad news more seriously in such a case. So [edit] the principle quoted here doesn't work.
It's the technicalities that resolve the issue, and ministers are not epidemiologists.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
OT SPotY nominations are out and even worse than last year.
The six nominees are gymnast Jessica Gadirova, footballer Beth Mead, curling's Eve Muirhead, cricketer Ben Stokes, snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan and athlete Jake Wightman. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
Why? They look reasonable to me. I don't see any tokenism this time.
Last year, lots of Olympians were omitted but at least there was the excuse there were a lot of them. Who has been left out this year? No Tyson Fury who has twice defended his world heavyweight belt. No Rory McIlroy who has won three tournaments and reached world number one. Two of the others have done nothing this year they've not done previously, so that can't be it. Half this year's nominees aren't even famous in their own households and if they were, maybe the BBC would have noticed one of them (Eve Muirhead) has retired.
Beth Mead deserves to win, and will win.
Fury made his feelings clear last time he was nominated, so I don't blame the BBC for not bothering with him.
Why should retiring discount someone from SPoTY? Steve Redgrave won it in 2000 despite having retired. Perhaps curling and snooker shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as other sports (games?), but I think it's fine.
The only one that I think you have a point on is Stokes v McIlrory. Arguably the men's cricket team should win team of the year (they won't, of course and I doubt Bazza will get coach of the year either), but it has been a team effort and as good as Stokes has been as captain, I'm not sure it's enough for him to be nominated. Golf is all about the majors, but perhaps shouldn't be and Rory had a fantastic year.
EDIT: I can't really comment on the athlete. How strong was the field at the Worlds?
Fury was weird about Jewish people too.
It's a shame he has all this baggage - he is a phenomenal boxer and a great showman. But he's made his own bed with this sort of stuff.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
I honestly think we’re witnessing the last months of the NHS as we know it. This is going to be the considerably light straw breaking the considerably overburdened back, but the end is nigh.
1) I'd love the British Museum to donate them to the one in Edinburgh. The political drama. The dilemma. Also they'd look quite cool in the main concourse.
2) I was once asked where the marbles were in Elgin. Sad Italian tourist got confused.
3) The big statue in Elgin is not Elgin. It's the Duke of Gordon.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
Very interesting read. The deafening silence from SAGE and the modellers after their models failed in January was very noticeable. When presented with the evidence it's now clear that they were pushing the lockdown agenda. The continual ignoring of data from South Africa points to an agenda, happily the Cabinet found the will to ignore our own government scientists and listened to the banks and other private research suggesting it wasn't as bad as 6000 deaths per day.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
"ministers spotted a common refrain from those in Sage: any bad news from South Africa (such as faster transmission) was modelled and reported in an instant. But any good news – even hugely good news – was either ignored, or placed in the ‘too early to say’ category."
Worth remembering Starmer was pushing for a lockdown then too. It can be put in the "he'd be a shit PM" column.
There is such a thing as the precautionary principle. It's wise to take bad news more seriously in such a case. So [edit] the principle quoted here doesn't work.
It's the technicalities that resolve the issue, and ministers are not epidemiologists.
That only makes sense in the absence of data and evidence. You don't need to take a precautionary approach when you have data. We had plenty of data from SA suggesting shorter hospital stays and significantly weaker infections. They chose to ignore that data. They chose to push the lockdown agenda. All of those scientists who did that need to be put in front of the public inquiry and asked why they did that and ultimately barred from providing the government with advice in the future. Those private modellers who got it right should be brought into the tent.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
"ministers spotted a common refrain from those in Sage: any bad news from South Africa (such as faster transmission) was modelled and reported in an instant. But any good news – even hugely good news – was either ignored, or placed in the ‘too early to say’ category."
Worth remembering Starmer was pushing for a lockdown then too. It can be put in the "he'd be a shit PM" column.
God, just re-reading that thread makes me feel a bit sick. I can remember the day we were going to be bounced into further restrictions, and then, miraculously, weren't. That was one of the strangest days of covid. A mysteriously large number of decision makers wanted the answer to be lockdown and spent their time searching for the right question. It made little sense then, and it makes less sense now. I think his report of his twitter conversation with the admirably frank individual actually doing the modelling - who confirmed that modellers had only ever been asked to model worst cases - was, I think, pretty important in alerting Tory MPs to what their government was doing. Arguably Fraser Nelson is the man who saved Christmas 2021 (and also indirectly saved the British economy millions and millions of pounds).
A full cost analysis of nurses pay rise should also include:
Extra tax receipts from nurses Lower state benefit costs to nurses Extra tax receipts from those in other jobs unable to work due to long term waiting lists, and lower benefit costs from them Future savings from better retention Increase in quality and productivity from better motivation and fewer disruptions from strikes
I don't think the maths is even close and this is all about more stubborn Tory ideology being tried ahead of pragmatism. Not as sharply damaging as Truss and Kamikwaze but the same malaise that costs the tax payer money and gives us deteriorating public services.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
"ministers spotted a common refrain from those in Sage: any bad news from South Africa (such as faster transmission) was modelled and reported in an instant. But any good news – even hugely good news – was either ignored, or placed in the ‘too early to say’ category."
Worth remembering Starmer was pushing for a lockdown then too. It can be put in the "he'd be a shit PM" column.
There is such a thing as the precautionary principle. It's wise to take bad news more seriously in such a case. So [edit] the principle quoted here doesn't work.
It's the technicalities that resolve the issue, and ministers are not epidemiologists.
You'll be telling us next Jeremy Corbyn's brother isn't a meteorologist.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
1) I'd love the British Museum to donate them to the one in Edinburgh. The political drama. The dilemma. Also they'd look quite cool in the main concourse.
2) I was once asked where the marbles were in Elgin. Sad Italian tourist got confused.
3) The big statue in Elgin is not Elgin. It's the Duke of Gordon.
They would look rather splendid in foyer area with the fountains. And it would make the fabric of the new addition to the museum look slightly less out of place.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
That implies that every nurse also earns £60,000 a year which equally isn’t likely. Many are part time so I suspect the average pay is half that
The cost of keeping them employed is not the same as their salary and that would include overtime and other expenses.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started.
I have Joseph of Arimathea (which means a lion dead to the Lord) down as Pharisee, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be blazing rows about direction of travel within sects. I say this because you are pointing to the Dead Sea scrolls. Among the Tribalism and sectarianism of the time there does seem to be division between hellenised (liking Greek stuff like that of Plato) and others who didn’t like that. And you know why the Dead Sea scrolls were found? Because the were hidden. And why were they hidden? So they could be found, not all burnt by the militia coming with swords to chop the monastery up.
I advise Yet again we read them knowing the bias from one side in a struggle.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
I honestly think we’re witnessing the last months of the NHS as we know it. This is going to be the considerably light straw breaking the considerably overburdened back, but the end is nigh.
In some ways it would be a good thing (albeit very very bad as well). Even Labour are now admitting the NHS is not "the envy of the world"
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
Very interesting read. The deafening silence from SAGE and the modellers after their models failed in January was very noticeable. When presented with the evidence it's now clear that they were pushing the lockdown agenda. The continual ignoring of data from South Africa points to an agenda, happily the Cabinet found the will to ignore our own government scientists and listened to the banks and other private research suggesting it wasn't as bad as 6000 deaths per day.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started. As well as having Faith and big supporter of CoE but also attend services outside CoE, I am also a big fan of history - but there is nothing I’ve seen that sheds light on Jesus youth before his ministry, and not much historical Jesus outside of the Bible even of his ministry. The first bit of Bible written is Paul’s letters from Greek Islands where he is helping non Jews realise how important Jesus is to everyone, and this was more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified by the Jewish leaders and Roman Empire.
But to build on what you said Stu - Uncle Joseph is big in Jesus life especially all what he does after the crucifixion, and Uncle Joseph was a big political figure on council, and who he represented likely sheds light onto which sect Jesus belonged too.
Sects. That’s got your attention. It’s important to remember there’s sectarian disagreements Jesus is a part of. Hence the incidence you mentioned, and much later Jewish leaders wanting him executed by Romans.
Also I read something that through his mothers side Jesus was close to Royalty.
If you are interested in more I can recommend AN Wilson biography of Jesus.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't know why it took me 68 years to think of that question.
There is no “mystery” about Jesus Christ’s early life. He was learning the tin trade with his merchant uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, hence the Son of God’s trips to Cornwall, as limned in William Blake’s Jerusalem. Next
Can you point to any historical text which says that?
Do you have any text that says Joseph of arimanthia is actually his uncle not his sect leader?
Are you looking to start a debate between value of aural history v written texts we must consider were naturally biased, not gospel, such as Norse texts started having Mediterranean Christian Martyrs put in after conversion?
No, no and << checks notes >> no
The last no, actually why not? Why not take a note of that thought? Anyone saying what you said about Jesus in Cornwall being untrue can’t know that for certain. We get a lot of our history from documents written by Christians. Certainly after the the council of Nicaea and the arrival of Popes, they took a dim view of the what they saw as heresy that went on before that. A Christian monk on UK during Dark Ages who wrote down aural traditions like Jesus in Cornwall might have had his parchment ripped up and himself put on the naughty step. 1200 years later there are still aural histories for Blake to hear, which is interesting I suppose as it was not just in Cornwall but in the med too the same aural stories.
Sects. I think go goes back to what I said about sects. What Joseph of Aramathea gets up to might be a bone of contention to rival sect leaders and their followers.
I was being flippant. I’m still a bit sickly so unable to take on a vast theological debate. Sorry!
But in brief I agree with you. WHO KNOWS. I don’t 100% dismiss the Jesus in Cornwall mythos. 99% sure. But not 100%
I’ve spent much of my Knapper’s Gazette life writing about Gobekli Tepe, and watching the skeptics get confounded time and again. So I know that sometimes the most unlikely ideas or discoveries CAN be true
I think its quite likely that some people moved round the world for trade, and adventure, a lot more than is commonly supposed. Its certainly possible for someone from Judea to have visited the British Isles. After all, lots of Romans did.
I've always imagined boats coming from the eastern Med, up round Spain to the Basques, then heading up to Cornwall - very decent money to be made (see also endless BBC mini-breaks by celebrity chefs).
Like you - I think we probably underestimate how much trade & travel were going on. I guess way less likely to be documented than an exciting invasion or the like. Possibly also (like the rumours that the Basques knew about the fish banks off Canada long before they were 'discovered' by others) traders kept some routes and sources very much to themselves too.
I can also imagine if you had a Judean lad who was inquisitive, bright, outgoing and he was offered the chance to take the trip with a well-to-do relative - why not? I guess unless we find a note signed by 'Master J.H.Christ' saying something like 'God, Bodmin's awful. But at least it's not St.Austell.' we'll never know.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
That implies that every nurse also earns £60,000 a year which equally isn’t likely. Many are part time so I suspect the average pay is half that
The cost of keeping them employed is not the same as their salary and that would include overtime and other expenses.
Between pensions, maternity, sickness rights, Employers NI etc I would suspect that not much more than half the cost goes into actual wages.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
That implies that every nurse also earns £60,000 a year which equally isn’t likely. Many are part time so I suspect the average pay is half that
The cost of keeping them employed is not the same as their salary and that would include overtime and other expenses.
Not all staff will be full time so that £30,000 average seems right.
Now you are right to say there re additional employment costs beyond salary but employer NI between an nhs trust and hmrc is really a circle of money going backwards and forwards for consistency purposes so it really doesn’t matter.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
As I have said it very much depends on what costs are being allocated. The rights package the NHS staff have is worth a considerable part of their salary but you can play with overhead any way you want.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
That implies that every nurse also earns £60,000 a year which equally isn’t likely. Many are part time so I suspect the average pay is half that
The cost of keeping them employed is not the same as their salary and that would include overtime and other expenses.
Between pensions, maternity, sickness rights, Employers NI etc I would suspect that not much more than half the cost goes into actual wages.
The knock-on effect of increased NHS salaries would be to widen the gap between public and private sector care workers.
1) I'd love the British Museum to donate them to the one in Edinburgh. The political drama. The dilemma. Also they'd look quite cool in the main concourse.
2) I was once asked where the marbles were in Elgin. Sad Italian tourist got confused.
3) The big statue in Elgin is not Elgin. It's the Duke of Gordon.
The big Pictish stone that's in the grounds of Elgin Cathedral is also quite impressive.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
As I have said it very much depends on what costs are being allocated. The rights package the NHS staff have is worth a considerable part of their salary but you can play with overhead any way you want.
Whats often forgotten is that Nurses get nearly as much holiday as teachers.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
Very interesting read. The deafening silence from SAGE and the modellers after their models failed in January was very noticeable. When presented with the evidence it's now clear that they were pushing the lockdown agenda. The continual ignoring of data from South Africa points to an agenda, happily the Cabinet found the will to ignore our own government scientists and listened to the banks and other private research suggesting it wasn't as bad as 6000 deaths per
day.
Spot on. The horribly transparent colonialist attitude to the SA doctors was an international embarrassment. Yet the South Africans were right. Sage were wrong. Very wrong. But it was too late to save Christmas for millions employed in pubs and restaurants.
Did Sage ever apologise to the South African medical profession?
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
I am a Christian on here like HY, and I can build a bit on what you have said Stu and give an honest answer to kjh.
The honest answer kjh is no - there’s not much in Bible or out of it on Jesus life before his ministry started. As well as having Faith and big supporter of CoE but also attend services outside CoE, I am also a big fan of history - but there is nothing I’ve seen that sheds light on Jesus youth before his ministry, and not much historical Jesus outside of the Bible even of his ministry. The first bit of Bible written is Paul’s letters from Greek Islands where he is helping non Jews realise how important Jesus is to everyone, and this was more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified by the Jewish leaders and Roman Empire.
But to build on what you said Stu - Uncle Joseph is big in Jesus life especially all what he does after the crucifixion, and Uncle Joseph was a big political figure on council, and who he represented likely sheds light onto which sect Jesus belonged too.
Sects. That’s got your attention. It’s important to remember there’s sectarian disagreements Jesus is a part of. Hence the incidence you mentioned, and much later Jewish leaders wanting him executed by Romans.
Also I read something that through his mothers side Jesus was close to Royalty.
If you are interested in more I can recommend AN Wilson biography of Jesus.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't know why it took me 68 years to think of that question.
There is no “mystery” about Jesus Christ’s early life. He was learning the tin trade with his merchant uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, hence the Son of God’s trips to Cornwall, as limned in William Blake’s Jerusalem. Next
Can you point to any historical text which says that?
Do you have any text that says Joseph of arimanthia is actually his uncle not his sect leader?
Are you looking to start a debate between value of aural history v written texts we must consider were naturally biased, not gospel, such as Norse texts started having Mediterranean Christian Martyrs put in after conversion?
No, no and << checks notes >> no
The last no, actually why not? Why not take a note of that thought? Anyone saying what you said about Jesus in Cornwall being untrue can’t know that for certain. We get a lot of our history from documents written by Christians. Certainly after the the council of Nicaea and the arrival of Popes, they took a dim view of the what they saw as heresy that went on before that. A Christian monk on UK during Dark Ages who wrote down aural traditions like Jesus in Cornwall might have had his parchment ripped up and himself put on the naughty step. 1200 years later there are still aural histories for Blake to hear, which is interesting I suppose as it was not just in Cornwall but in the med too the same aural stories.
Sects. I think go goes back to what I said about sects. What Joseph of Aramathea gets up to might be a bone of contention to rival sect leaders and their followers.
I was being flippant. I’m still a bit sickly so unable to take on a vast theological debate. Sorry!
But in brief I agree with you. WHO KNOWS. I don’t 100% dismiss the Jesus in Cornwall mythos. 99% sure. But not 100%
I’ve spent much of my Knapper’s Gazette life writing about Gobekli Tepe, and watching the skeptics get confounded time and again. So I know that sometimes the most unlikely ideas or discoveries CAN be true
I think its quite likely that some people moved round the world for trade, and adventure, a lot more than is commonly supposed. Its certainly possible for someone from Judea to have visited the British Isles. After all, lots of Romans did.
I've always imagined boats coming from the eastern Med, up round Spain to the Basques, then heading up to Cornwall - very decent money to be made (see also endless BBC mini-breaks by celebrity chefs).
Like you - I think we probably underestimate how much trade & travel were going on. I guess way less likely to be documented than an exciting invasion or the like. Possibly also (like the rumours that the Basques knew about the fish banks off Canada long before they were 'discovered' by others) traders kept some routes and sources very much to themselves too.
I can also imagine if you had a Judean lad who was inquisitive, bright, outgoing and he was offered the chance to take the trip with a well-to-do relative - why not? I guess unless we find a note signed by 'Master J.H.Christ' saying something like 'God, Bodmin's awful. But at least it's not St.Austell.' we'll never know.
Weathers crap. Food weird and apple booze keeps giving me the shits. Can’t understand a word the locals are saying.
No that’s not Jesus. That’s me every time I visit Snookie in Bristol! 😆
Snookie and her rugby superstar fiancé took me to liquid lunch in a harbour side pub close to where Wallace and Gromit live, which they like, where everyone drank cider. I remember sat there listening and thinking, I don’t understand a single word the locals are saying!
A 6% nurses payrise in line with the national average may be coming but not the 19% they want
In which case lots will clear off and become telephone sanitisers in accordance with Conservative philosophy of the free market.
That's the penny that still hasn't dropped yet. The strikes are just accelerating the inevitable unless pay rises to meet market expectations or labour supply is increased by other means.
There is no magic nurse tree.
If you get rid of the university degree requirement there probably is, there's no practical benefit of nurses going to university.
Although presumably that is a longer term solution: nurses without University degrees will still need training, and presumably they previously got some of that training on university nursing courses.
I work in one of the big UK university departments training nurses and midwives (although I'm little involved myself - occasional lecture - and not employed for that at all). The course is very hands-on, mostly practical training, including placements and the vast majority taught by qualified clinicians rather than traditional academics.
There's a bit on research methods, critical appraisal etc (the bit I sometimes contribute to) which I do think has some value. Obviously more important for doctors, but nurses sometimes end up in charge of care decisions, particularly those in primary care - helps to prevent them being taken in by and pushing evidence-free bollocks such as homeopathy. We also teach midwives and there's definitely a need there for an understanding of what has evidence and what does not!
But, whatever views on the above paragraph, a non-university training course would look very similar to what we deliver.
Which is the point of the nurse practitioner qualification still having the university degree bar. The point is that we've created an artificial limitation on who can qualify in certain professions and then there's a huge shortage of labour in them. Nursing is one of those professions where a university degree is mostly unnecessary and for those who want to go on to be nurse practitioners the degree would still be available anyway.
It's sort of like how tech industry jobs used to require a computer science degree but companies realised this was unnecessary and all they really wanted were people who could code, so anyone with 6 months in a bootcamp was able to a junior programmer job and work their way up. I have no formal qualifications for what I do, my chemistry degree has been worse than useless since I graduated, I'm just lucky it only resulted in £14k worth of debt rather than £45k as students are lumbered with now.
You do also get some people entering nursing who are only doing so because it's now seen as potentially a higher status/skill job with the degree (which will be useful to open other doors* even if turning away from nursing) and the enhanced roles etc.
Can you not still enter nursing without a degree? I thought there were still routes?
*that it's needed/perceived to be needed to open other doors is of course part of a problem that we both agree on
There are degree apprenticeships and nursing associate + shortened degree pathways.
And to any teenagers watching, remember that Student Loans are designed not to be loans really. They are meant to function as a graduate tax without being labelled as a tax. Most people will never get near paying them off, the interest rate isn't real interest and the write-offs are a design feature, not a bug.
Ignorant people making scary claims to further political points are much more of a problem.
If non degree and degree apprenticeship paths are available only a fool (or someone without decent advice) would take the paid degree option.
Sadly multiple cuts to careers advisory services over the past 40 years has made decent advice something that is impossible for most 18 year olds to access. So they head to uni and 30 years of 10% or so extra tax because they don’t know what other options are available.
Degree apprenticeships are certainly attractive but do have some drawbacks. They take longer (I think), have intense periods of study at a Uni, and are not well paid during the apprenticeship duration. A nursing degree gives the advantage of being quicker, you get a student experience (not everyone will think that important) and the loans are indeed a graduate tax but with a limit on what you pay, and at what salary you start to pay it back.
Plus, if nursing is not for you, you have a degree which probably eases your path into other careers.
It’s chilling to realize that racism is so powerful that the royal family would ruin what is for now the one opportunity they were given to reach the hearts and minds of the very people who make their lives possible. They had a gift: In Meghan Markle they had a woman who is intelligent, poised and largely able to live in the public eye, play the role of princess and give the best of herself in service of something bigger than herself.
… Harry and Meghan both say they would have worked on behalf of the monarchy for the rest of their lives if the royal family extended them a modicum of consideration and safety. They wanted the royal family to embrace Meghan’s role in Harry’s life and to use it — to use her — to the crown’s advantage. Instead, the family did the exact opposite time and time again.
The Sussexes were incredibly popular in Britain, in Australia, in South Africa and throughout the Commonwealth. Had they stayed in the monarchy, they may have become more and more of a threat.
I actually saw a bit of the Netflix doco last night (Mrs Anabob is well into the royals, loves the soap opera, fashion and the goss).
It wasn’t what I was expecting at all! It was actually pretty good, interesting even.
Clearly it’s very much from Meg’s standpoint but nevertheless is far superior to most of the cap doffing royalist trash that pollutes the telly.
No it was a whingefest from their $10 million mansion in sunny California paid for by Netflix millions directed at Americans while Brits face the cold and rising cost of living. Meghan really doesn't care that much about us or the Commonwealth. She cares about becoming A list in the US, witness her squeal of delight when Beyonce tweeted her.
The idea they would ever have moved to New Zealand or Canada over California or New York City (where Harry was filmed in a pal's apartment in Manhattan) is laughable
Out of interest have you been watching it? I haven't and I don't know anyone who has. Is it popular?
We have watched all of it bar the last episode, it was clearly scripted and orchestrated by Meghan, Harry is just her puppet she used for social advancement.
In a few years once he is no longer useful she probably dumps him for a tech billionaire rather than end up a latter day Wallis Simpson
I loathe this habit of removing agency:
Harry took part in the documentary. He is therefore every bit as culpable as Meghan.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
This must be denting the confidence of even the most senile of pensioners who make up Tory voting share.
It’s chilling to realize that racism is so powerful that the royal family would ruin what is for now the one opportunity they were given to reach the hearts and minds of the very people who make their lives possible. They had a gift: In Meghan Markle they had a woman who is intelligent, poised and largely able to live in the public eye, play the role of princess and give the best of herself in service of something bigger than herself.
… Harry and Meghan both say they would have worked on behalf of the monarchy for the rest of their lives if the royal family extended them a modicum of consideration and safety. They wanted the royal family to embrace Meghan’s role in Harry’s life and to use it — to use her — to the crown’s advantage. Instead, the family did the exact opposite time and time again.
The Sussexes were incredibly popular in Britain, in Australia, in South Africa and throughout the Commonwealth. Had they stayed in the monarchy, they may have become more and more of a threat.
I actually saw a bit of the Netflix doco last night (Mrs Anabob is well into the royals, loves the soap opera, fashion and the goss).
It wasn’t what I was expecting at all! It was actually pretty good, interesting even.
Clearly it’s very much from Meg’s standpoint but nevertheless is far superior to most of the cap doffing royalist trash that pollutes the telly.
No it was a whingefest from their $10 million mansion in sunny California paid for by Netflix millions directed at Americans while Brits face the cold and rising cost of living. Meghan really doesn't care that much about us or the Commonwealth. She cares about becoming A list in the US, witness her squeal of delight when Beyonce tweeted her.
The idea they would ever have moved to New Zealand or Canada over California or New York City (where Harry was filmed in a pal's apartment in Manhattan) is laughable
Out of interest have you been watching it? I haven't and I don't know anyone who has. Is it popular?
We have watched all of it bar the last episode, it was clearly scripted and orchestrated by Meghan, Harry is just her puppet she used for social advancement.
In a few years once he is no longer useful she probably dumps him for a tech billionaire rather than end up a latter day Wallis Simpson
I loathe this habit of removing agency:
Harry took part in the documentary. He is therefore every bit as culpable as Meghan.
Ah, but he is of the royal blue blood and must bne protected. Interesting to see how HYUFD is pivoting to do so.
It’s chilling to realize that racism is so powerful that the royal family would ruin what is for now the one opportunity they were given to reach the hearts and minds of the very people who make their lives possible. They had a gift: In Meghan Markle they had a woman who is intelligent, poised and largely able to live in the public eye, play the role of princess and give the best of herself in service of something bigger than herself.
… Harry and Meghan both say they would have worked on behalf of the monarchy for the rest of their lives if the royal family extended them a modicum of consideration and safety. They wanted the royal family to embrace Meghan’s role in Harry’s life and to use it — to use her — to the crown’s advantage. Instead, the family did the exact opposite time and time again.
The Sussexes were incredibly popular in Britain, in Australia, in South Africa and throughout the Commonwealth. Had they stayed in the monarchy, they may have become more and more of a threat.
I actually saw a bit of the Netflix doco last night (Mrs Anabob is well into the royals, loves the soap opera, fashion and the goss).
It wasn’t what I was expecting at all! It was actually pretty good, interesting even.
Clearly it’s very much from Meg’s standpoint but nevertheless is far superior to most of the cap doffing royalist trash that pollutes the telly.
No it was a whingefest from their $10 million mansion in sunny California paid for by Netflix millions directed at Americans while Brits face the cold and rising cost of living. Meghan really doesn't care that much about us or the Commonwealth. She cares about becoming A list in the US, witness her squeal of delight when Beyonce tweeted her.
The idea they would ever have moved to New Zealand or Canada over California or New York City (where Harry was filmed in a pal's apartment in Manhattan) is laughable
Out of interest have you been watching it? I haven't and I don't know anyone who has. Is it popular?
We have watched all of it bar the last episode, it was clearly scripted and orchestrated by Meghan, Harry is just her puppet she used for social advancement.
In a few years once he is no longer useful she probably dumps him for a tech billionaire rather than end up a latter day Wallis Simpson
I loathe this habit of removing agency:
Harry took part in the documentary. He is therefore every bit as culpable as Meghan.
He is not the brains behind the Sussex brand however, she is
1) I'd love the British Museum to donate them to the one in Edinburgh. The political drama. The dilemma. Also they'd look quite cool in the main concourse.
2) I was once asked where the marbles were in Elgin. Sad Italian tourist got confused.
3) The big statue in Elgin is not Elgin. It's the Duke of Gordon.
The big Pictish stone that's in the grounds of Elgin Cathedral is also quite impressive.
As is Gordon & Macphail. Several lifetimes of single malts. And I love the local stone.
It’s chilling to realize that racism is so powerful that the royal family would ruin what is for now the one opportunity they were given to reach the hearts and minds of the very people who make their lives possible. They had a gift: In Meghan Markle they had a woman who is intelligent, poised and largely able to live in the public eye, play the role of princess and give the best of herself in service of something bigger than herself.
… Harry and Meghan both say they would have worked on behalf of the monarchy for the rest of their lives if the royal family extended them a modicum of consideration and safety. They wanted the royal family to embrace Meghan’s role in Harry’s life and to use it — to use her — to the crown’s advantage. Instead, the family did the exact opposite time and time again.
The Sussexes were incredibly popular in Britain, in Australia, in South Africa and throughout the Commonwealth. Had they stayed in the monarchy, they may have become more and more of a threat.
I actually saw a bit of the Netflix doco last night (Mrs Anabob is well into the royals, loves the soap opera, fashion and the goss).
It wasn’t what I was expecting at all! It was actually pretty good, interesting even.
Clearly it’s very much from Meg’s standpoint but nevertheless is far superior to most of the cap doffing royalist trash that pollutes the telly.
No it was a whingefest from their $10 million mansion in sunny California paid for by Netflix millions directed at Americans while Brits face the cold and rising cost of living. Meghan really doesn't care that much about us or the Commonwealth. She cares about becoming A list in the US, witness her squeal of delight when Beyonce tweeted her.
The idea they would ever have moved to New Zealand or Canada over California or New York City (where Harry was filmed in a pal's apartment in Manhattan) is laughable
Out of interest have you been watching it? I haven't and I don't know anyone who has. Is it popular?
We have watched all of it bar the last episode, it was clearly scripted and orchestrated by Meghan, Harry is just her puppet she used for social advancement.
In a few years once he is no longer useful she probably dumps him for a tech billionaire rather than end up a latter day Wallis Simpson
You're a bit like the Daily Mail online on this. Every day they have an article saying "Why We Should Ignore Meghan and Harry!". This is followed by another 30 articles about, er, Harry and Meghan.
But the comparison is strikingly apt. Edward and Mrs Simpson were massive news in the English speaking world for years - as Harry and Meghan are now. But then the world moved on - war! - and their glamour faded fast. And their salience fell away
The same will happen to H&M
Indeed, the Princess of Wales is also the strongest royal now the Queen has passed and will deal with the Duchess of Sussex as the Queen Mother dealt with the Duchess of Windsor, ignore her but ensure they both fade into obscurity in exile abroad while the royal family focuses in on her husband and children as William prepares to take the throne
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
That implies that every nurse also earns £60,000 a year which equally isn’t likely. Many are part time so I suspect the average pay is half that
The cost of keeping them employed is not the same as their salary and that would include overtime and other expenses.
Between pensions, maternity, sickness rights, Employers NI etc I would suspect that not much more than half the cost goes into actual wages.
We know that the nhs employs 300,000 or so nurses (that will include those on maternity / sick) That average full time pay is £33,000 to £35,000.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
I honestly think we’re witnessing the last months of the NHS as we know it. This is going to be the considerably light straw breaking the considerably overburdened back, but the end is nigh.
In some ways it would be a good thing (albeit very very bad as well). Even Labour are now admitting the NHS is not "the envy of the world"
Enough of this idolatrous bullshit
The idolatrous bullshit will continue even if the way the NHS works is fundamentally changed. Whoever does the fundamental changing (and the Labour Party must be desperate for this to occur on the Tories’ watch) will be the murderers of Our NHS(tm) and will forever be pilloried for it. People will look back with rose tinted glasses to the glory days of Our NHS and how wonderful it was, conveniently ignoring the fact it was growing increasingly unsustainable.
Everybody seems to think the NHS is unsustainable, but I doubt there’s any unity behind what might replace it.
I think the rather boring, awful answer is likely more money, but those figures I posted yesterday on the significant lack of capital expenditure versus peer systems points to a grand and systemic misallocation of funds.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
That implies that every nurse also earns £60,000 a year which equally isn’t likely. Many are part time so I suspect the average pay is half that
The cost of keeping them employed is not the same as their salary and that would include overtime and other expenses.
Between pensions, maternity, sickness rights, Employers NI etc I would suspect that not much more than half the cost goes into actual wages.
Salary being 30% of total employment cost is not unheard of. 50% is quite common
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
Very interesting read. The deafening silence from SAGE and the modellers after their models failed in January was very noticeable. When presented with the evidence it's now clear that they were pushing the lockdown agenda. The continual ignoring of data from South Africa points to an agenda, happily the Cabinet found the will to ignore our own government scientists and listened to the banks and other private research suggesting it wasn't as bad as 6000 deaths per day.
A shame it took them so long, but maybe it needed something so blatant as South Africa/Omicron (and the accompanying "of course we only model bad outcomes" Twitter gaffe) to get through to the ministers that the scientistsmodellers weren't on the public's side.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
"ministers spotted a common refrain from those in Sage: any bad news from South Africa (such as faster transmission) was modelled and reported in an instant. But any good news – even hugely good news – was either ignored, or placed in the ‘too early to say’ category."
Worth remembering Starmer was pushing for a lockdown then too. It can be put in the "he'd be a shit PM" column.
There is such a thing as the precautionary principle. It's wise to take bad news more seriously in such a case. So [edit] the principle quoted here doesn't work.
It's the technicalities that resolve the issue, and ministers are not epidemiologists.
SAGE were not exhibiting that precautionary principle. For whatever reason, pushing whatever private agenda, they were caught out not being epidemiologists, they were being politicians.
It is to pb.com's eternal credit that the good news from South Africa was pushed front and centre. If it had a role in informing our own MPs, then it performed a valuable role. Sometimes easy to forget how much brilliant data was being presented here.
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
Very interesting read. The deafening silence from SAGE and the modellers after their models failed in January was very noticeable. When presented with the evidence it's now clear that they were pushing the lockdown agenda. The continual ignoring of data from South Africa points to an agenda, happily the Cabinet found the will to ignore our own government scientists and listened to the banks and other private research suggesting it wasn't as bad as 6000 deaths per day.
Yes, it's clear many individuals were actively keen on lockdowns, and wanted to find justification for them. The interesting question is why. Masochism? A mystical belief that if only we deny ourselves enough we will be rewarded? A reluctance to let Boris take any credit for anything? A need to be centre stage? Because it is very difficult to read as 'because the balance of evidence showed they were needed'.
Is the cost of nurses salaries really only £8.4bn? Out of a total NHS budget of £145bn? 5.8% of the NHS budget on nurses? Really?
The figures being quoted by the Minister on the Today program last week were that every 1% increase in nurses' pay costs between £700-800m. I think that the variation arises from the fact that there are ancillary staff who would expect to get the same increase. This would indicate that the total cost of nurses salaries are more like £70bn than £8.4bn. .
£70bn doesn't make sense. It would imply there are something like 1.2m nurses in the NHS. I think the NHS in total employs that number.
That implies that every nurse also earns £60,000 a year which equally isn’t likely. Many are part time so I suspect the average pay is half that
The cost of keeping them employed is not the same as their salary and that would include overtime and other expenses.
Between pensions, maternity, sickness rights, Employers NI etc I would suspect that not much more than half the cost goes into actual wages.
Yeah, I've been told by HR and similar people in several different fields that the cost to the employer of employing someone is, as a rule of thumb, double their headline salary.
Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland
So, they’ll soon be getting relocated from the British Museum to the Scottish one will they?
It’s chilling to realize that racism is so powerful that the royal family would ruin what is for now the one opportunity they were given to reach the hearts and minds of the very people who make their lives possible. They had a gift: In Meghan Markle they had a woman who is intelligent, poised and largely able to live in the public eye, play the role of princess and give the best of herself in service of something bigger than herself.
… Harry and Meghan both say they would have worked on behalf of the monarchy for the rest of their lives if the royal family extended them a modicum of consideration and safety. They wanted the royal family to embrace Meghan’s role in Harry’s life and to use it — to use her — to the crown’s advantage. Instead, the family did the exact opposite time and time again.
The Sussexes were incredibly popular in Britain, in Australia, in South Africa and throughout the Commonwealth. Had they stayed in the monarchy, they may have become more and more of a threat.
I actually saw a bit of the Netflix doco last night (Mrs Anabob is well into the royals, loves the soap opera, fashion and the goss).
It wasn’t what I was expecting at all! It was actually pretty good, interesting even.
Clearly it’s very much from Meg’s standpoint but nevertheless is far superior to most of the cap doffing royalist trash that pollutes the telly.
No it was a whingefest from their $10 million mansion in sunny California paid for by Netflix millions directed at Americans while Brits face the cold and rising cost of living. Meghan really doesn't care that much about us or the Commonwealth. She cares about becoming A list in the US, witness her squeal of delight when Beyonce tweeted her.
The idea they would ever have moved to New Zealand or Canada over California or New York City (where Harry was filmed in a pal's apartment in Manhattan) is laughable
Out of interest have you been watching it? I haven't and I don't know anyone who has. Is it popular?
We have watched all of it bar the last episode, it was clearly scripted and orchestrated by Meghan, Harry is just her puppet she used for social advancement.
In a few years once he is no longer useful she probably dumps him for a tech billionaire rather than end up a latter day Wallis Simpson
I loathe this habit of removing agency:
Harry took part in the documentary. He is therefore every bit as culpable as Meghan.
He is not the brains behind the Sussex brand however, she is
I'm not sure he's the brains behind tying his shoelaces in the morning.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
This must be denting the confidence of even the most senile of pensioners who make up Tory voting share.
Why? There's a tsunami of illness out there at the moment. How is the NHS supposed to be immune (short of every member of the NHS spending 24 hours a day in a biohazard suit)?
Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland
So, they’ll soon be getting relocated from the British Museum to the Scottish one will they?
Nope, I thought not.
Is Scotland not in Britain?
Lord Elgin sold the marbles to the British government. The government put them in the national museum.
Everybody seems to think the NHS is unsustainable, but I doubt there’s any unity behind what might replace it.
I think the rather boring, awful answer is likely more money, but those figures I posted yesterday on the significant lack of capital expenditure versus peer systems points to a grand and systemic misallocation of funds.
It also seems to hold that those who dislike the principle of universal healthcare are also the ones who could afford the alternatives and don't need to worry about how the new system would work.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
This must be denting the confidence of even the most senile of pensioners who make up Tory voting share.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
This must be denting the confidence of even the most senile of pensioners who make up Tory voting share.
Why? There's a tsunami of illness out there at the moment. How is the NHS is supposed to be immune (short of every member of the NHS spending 24 hours a day in a biohazard suit)?
It’s not normal for the NHS to withdraw GP services, though is it? And the problem is not simply a peak in illness. That happens every year.
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
This must be denting the confidence of even the most senile of pensioners who make up Tory voting share.
Why? There's a tsunami of illness out there at the moment. How is the NHS is supposed to be immune (short of every member of the NHS spending 24 hours a day in a biohazard suit)?
Maybe not having 130,000 unfilled vacancies might help a tad?
My local surgery has just texted me (and thousands of others, presumably) stating that they are going into emergency measures and turning off e-consult due to unprecedented demand and staff sickness.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
I honestly think we’re witnessing the last months of the NHS as we know it. This is going to be the considerably light straw breaking the considerably overburdened back, but the end is nigh.
In some ways it would be a good thing (albeit very very bad as well). Even Labour are now admitting the NHS is not "the envy of the world"
Enough of this idolatrous bullshit
We may be about to discover how Goldman Sachs would run the NHS....
Fascinating article on how we avoided a lockdown last December. Ministers did not trust Sage, did their own research and prevented lockdown. Maybe some of them read PB at the time!
Very interesting read. The deafening silence from SAGE and the modellers after their models failed in January was very noticeable. When presented with the evidence it's now clear that they were pushing the lockdown agenda. The continual ignoring of data from South Africa points to an agenda, happily the Cabinet found the will to ignore our own government scientists and listened to the banks and other private research suggesting it wasn't as bad as 6000 deaths per day.
Yes, it's clear many individuals were actively keen on lockdowns, and wanted to find justification for them. The interesting question is why. Masochism? A mystical belief that if only we deny ourselves enough we will be rewarded? A reluctance to let Boris take any credit for anything? A need to be centre stage? Because it is very difficult to read as 'because the balance of evidence showed they were needed'.
Maybe just "If we lock down the cost to me is minimal, if we don't and it really *does* go to sh*t, then that's very bad for me. Let's lock down!"?
Comments
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7d6fab29-77ac-4c75-bc1c-3c9e6d0d6fc6?shareToken=6e6ad4fab8d97a5449295a150f8e50b2
Now I must arise - shudder - from my deathbed, and do a few unavoidable things. Later
I am however, sorry she had a hard time, on a human level. I wouldn’t wish being in the RF on my worst enemy.
Personally I wish the media would stop talking about her. Let her get on with her life un-harassed , which is of course what she wanted, right?
You can't exactly give it the big'un about moral purity, LGBT+ rights, etc during the WC and refusing to show the opening and closing ceremonies on your main channel as a weird snub and then 2 days later nominate Fury with all that baggage (I could also see the BBC employees getting irate about it).
It feels like a safety first list.
Cost of nhs agency staff is £8.9bn a year https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o2749 and it’s rapidly rising
I recall an attempt to blame the Yazidi when ISIS started massacring them - a claim that since they had sided with the American invasion of Iraq it was their own fault.
This was, of course garbage - the Yazidi had kept their heads down as they’ve done for time immemorial and didn’t take any side.
Why should retiring discount someone from SPoTY? Steve Redgrave won it in 2000 despite having retired. Perhaps curling and snooker shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as other sports (games?), but I think it's fine.
The only one that I think you have a point on is Stokes v McIlrory. Arguably the men's cricket team should win team of the year (they won't, of course and I doubt Bazza will get coach of the year either), but it has been a team effort and as good as Stokes has been as captain, I'm not sure it's enough for him to be nominated. Golf is all about the majors, but perhaps shouldn't be and Rory had a fantastic year.
EDIT: I can't really comment on the athlete. How strong was the field at the Worlds?
P.S. For avoidance of doubt, please don’t read this post as anti Cornish racism.
Stick to being racist, c’est ton metier
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-did-we-get-so-close-to-lockdown-last-christmas/
Even dafter is the final three shortlist for Young SPotY. Jessica Gadirova is nominated for Young SPotY as well as main SPotY, and the other two, Sky Brown and Andrea Spendolini-Sirieix, are the 2021 and 2020 winners.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63779048
The government are not winning the argument on pay restraint. This is largely because they have lost the high ground of at least being seen to be economically competent.
The fact the country has to go through another 18 months of this while the government slowly dies is very depressing.
Worth remembering Starmer was pushing for a lockdown then too. It can be put in the "he'd be a shit PM" column.
It's the technicalities that resolve the issue, and ministers are not epidemiologists.
Only options it now gives are to call 111 or 999.
This is very serious.
It's a shame he has all this baggage - he is a phenomenal boxer and a great showman. But he's made his own bed with this sort of stuff.
1) I'd love the British Museum to donate them to the one in Edinburgh. The political drama. The dilemma. Also they'd look quite cool in the main concourse.
2) I was once asked where the marbles were in Elgin. Sad Italian tourist got confused.
3) The big statue in Elgin is not Elgin. It's the Duke of Gordon.
A mysteriously large number of decision makers wanted the answer to be lockdown and spent their time searching for the right question. It made little sense then, and it makes less sense now.
I think his report of his twitter conversation with the admirably frank individual actually doing the modelling - who confirmed that modellers had only ever been asked to model worst cases - was, I think, pretty important in alerting Tory MPs to what their government was doing. Arguably Fraser Nelson is the man who saved Christmas 2021 (and also indirectly saved the British economy millions and millions of pounds).
Extra tax receipts from nurses
Lower state benefit costs to nurses
Extra tax receipts from those in other jobs unable to work due to long term waiting lists, and lower benefit costs from them
Future savings from better retention
Increase in quality and productivity from better motivation and fewer disruptions from strikes
I don't think the maths is even close and this is all about more stubborn Tory ideology being tried ahead of pragmatism. Not as sharply damaging as Truss and Kamikwaze but the same malaise that costs the tax payer money and gives us deteriorating public services.
I advise Yet again we read them knowing the bias from one side in a struggle.
Enough of this idolatrous bullshit
Like you - I think we probably underestimate how much trade & travel were going on. I guess way less likely to be documented than an exciting invasion or the like. Possibly also (like the rumours that the Basques knew about the fish banks off Canada long before they were 'discovered' by others) traders kept some routes and sources very much to themselves too.
I can also imagine if you had a Judean lad who was inquisitive, bright, outgoing and he was offered the chance to take the trip with a well-to-do relative - why not? I guess unless we find a note signed by 'Master J.H.Christ' saying something like 'God, Bodmin's awful. But at least it's not St.Austell.' we'll never know.
Not all staff will be full time so that £30,000 average seems right.
Now you are right to say there re additional employment costs beyond salary but employer NI between an nhs trust and hmrc is really a circle of money going backwards and forwards for consistency purposes so it really doesn’t matter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64025830
And I'm not sure this even includes differences in pension values. Without carers in care homes, hospital beds won't get unblocked.
Did Sage ever apologise to the South African medical profession?
No that’s not Jesus. That’s me every time I visit Snookie in Bristol! 😆
Snookie and her rugby superstar fiancé took me to liquid lunch in a harbour side pub close to where Wallace and Gromit live, which they like, where everyone drank cider. I remember sat there listening and thinking, I don’t understand a single word the locals are saying!
Harry took part in the documentary. He is therefore every bit as culpable as Meghan.
Cringey, but not the worst.
Thank goodness it’s not a hard hat.
So what we are left with is how many are part time and how much goes on pensions - 14.38% see https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/nhs-pension-scheme-employer-contribution-rates-202223 and employer NI at 13.8%
The more I look into the details the more £9bn looks roughly right
I think the rather boring, awful answer is likely more money, but those figures I posted yesterday on the significant lack of capital expenditure versus peer systems points to a grand and systemic misallocation of funds.
scientistsmodellers weren't on the public's side.It is to pb.com's eternal credit that the good news from South Africa was pushed front and centre. If it had a role in informing our own MPs, then it performed a valuable role. Sometimes easy to forget how much brilliant data was being presented here.
The interesting question is why. Masochism? A mystical belief that if only we deny ourselves enough we will be rewarded? A reluctance to let Boris take any credit for anything? A need to be centre stage? Because it is very difficult to read as 'because the balance of evidence showed they were needed'.
There are 396k nurses, ambulance drivers, health visitors and midwives enjoyed by the NHS.
Let's go with 50% being nurses, or 200k. Let's assume average salary of 35k, and you get to 7bn.
So doesn't sound unreasonable