A real puzzler from the Sunday Times Insight team here. Morons across the world are reduced to bemused frowns. @Nigelb@turbotubbs@kinabalu and @IanB2 are stroking their chins and scratching their tiny pin-like heads
We all know it probably came from a lab.
None of this is new evidence.
Indeed the head of the FBI cites no evidence, and is involved with US internal security rather than external espionage. What reason is there to believe he knows anything more than the Average Joe?
He may be privy to intelligence that is not available to the Average Joe. Post 9/11 I’d hope the various US agencies have become s bit more joined up in their thinking and sharing.
In this case, the message becomes the evidence, and you may wonder why the USA might want to put a little pressure on China at the moment. Note: he does not say it happened; just that it is 'most likely'. Which in itself is relatively meaningless, especially without evidence.
Now, if it was the CIA saying it, I'd listen a little more. But the FBI fairly strictly operates inside the USA only.
So if you claim that he's privy to intelligence on this, why would he be, as head of the FBI? And what is the FBI's expertise to say this?
The Department of Energy has shifted to “lab leak”
What is their expertise?
Dept of Energy is things like oil and shale and nukes. Not biology.
The joys of having a son who plays in a Southeast London and Kent under 14 football league... Team from Orpington spent the entire game effing and blinding, culminating in one of their players tearing his shirt off and trying to punch the ref while calling him a "sp*stic c*nt"... When he got sent off they tried to put another player on in his place. This is why I don't like leaving London!
Orpington is in the London Borough of Bromley so it’s in the SE London side of your son’s league. I’m sure all the kids from Kent are, conversely, angels who regularly help old ladies cross the street.
Yes I always forget how far the borough of Bromley extends! I've always thought of Orpington as being in Kent. It's quite interesting the variety of teams that play in the league, generally the further out the dirtier they play although some of the Deptford teams are a bit iffy too.
Of course generally the further out of inner London you live in the Capital, the more likely you were to vote for Brexit too. Barking and Dagenham, Romford, Bexley and Orpington were all strongly for Leave, though am sure there is no connection between the 2.
Sad to read about the impending closure of the National Glass Centre in Sunderland. As the place I got married have a very happy memory of the place. And then subsequent visits back.
Thanks for that. I'd never heard of them, but on the face of it, it sounds interesting. It is closing because of long-term structural issues; i.e. glass has started cracking, which will cost millions to fix.
In a similar manner, Southampton Central police station is shutting this year for extensive renovations that last between months and a year, after problems have been found. It opened around 2011.
How can an 11/12 year old building be so decrepit that it needs to be shut for a year for 'refurbishment' ? The National Glass Centre is older, but I bet it's stated design life is more than 25 years.
Modern architecture - especially signature architecture - has issues.
Is the glass cracking because of stresses within itself (tempering?)? Or loads imposed on it?
Why are we obsessing about the lab leak when HYUFD is kindly educating us about the relative niceness of various parts of the London Borough of Bromley?
To be honest the most interesting news I have heard over the last 24 hours was retired Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon, former head of the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment saying it was his firm belief that the Russian nuclear arsenal was in no better state than the rest of their forces and NATO should stop being put off by the threat of a nuclear response.
Not sure if I was reassured or worried by that.
Tritium is $30,000 a gram. Each warhead has 5+ grams. Easy money in a small capsule. It's Russia. What do you think has happened to all of it?
Edit: Numerous accounts of inspection by international arms control inspectors seeing lots of water at the bottom of the silos. Liquid fuel missiles (most of the Russia arsenal) are quite thin skinned and corrode easily. Water vapour in the silo was a real killer for the American liquid fueled systems, when they had them.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
Why are we obsessing about the lab leak when HYUFD is kindly educating us about the relative niceness of various parts of the London Borough of Bromley?
To be honest the most interesting news I have heard over the last 24 hours was retired Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon, former head of the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment saying it was his firm belief that the Russian nuclear arsenal was in no better state than the rest of their forces and NATO should stop being put off by the threat of a nuclear response.
Not sure if I was reassured or worried by that.
Does having five parts to his name get him any free promotions in the armed forces?
As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.
People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.
Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
It was a classic "stupid" policy by Boris's government wanting simplistic solutions that could be sold, even if they did not work. It is not consistent with the new "grown up" government that we have seen in NI to continue with this nonsense. I am disappointed.
What grown up government? Fixing the NI mess is tactical not strategic. An opportunity to do a deal with the EU and blame Johnson. It doesn't mean he will be looking for long term or sane solutions - he promoted Lee Anderson to be face of the party...
Ultimately, the thing to remember about Rishi the Grownup is that he backed BoJo from the beginning and served in his Cabinet until almost the end.
Yes, he's an improvement on Johnson, no that's not enough.
Ultimately the thing to remember is Starter backed Corbyn to the hilt.....through 2 GEs......
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
I think that there is a strong tendency to exploitation and abuse in any institution where the clients are inconvenient to society, whether Children's Homes, Residential Social Care, Police, Prisons, etc. The nature of the work, and inherent imbalances of power are too attractive to the wrong sorts of people, whatever the rate of pay or whether state or private provision.
There are dedicated and caring staff in all these institutions of course too, quietly getting on with great work unrecognised, but the recurrent nature of these scandals does suggest a systemic problem in society, or perhaps even human nature itself.
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
Pay is certainly key. And with an ageing population, plus wealth increasingly correlated to age, the 'market' should drive it up, you'd have thought. But markets often don't do what it says on the tin.
Edit: Talking about social care there rather than children's homes.
It had totally passed me by that the £2 bus fares have been extended till June. Apparently this was announced Feb 17, but I'd no idea, even though I catch a bus to work and back and follow politics. This government is useless at publicising good news.
Sad to read about the impending closure of the National Glass Centre in Sunderland. As the place I got married have a very happy memory of the place. And then subsequent visits back.
Thanks for that. I'd never heard of them, but on the face of it, it sounds interesting. It is closing because of long-term structural issues; i.e. glass has started cracking, which will cost millions to fix.
In a similar manner, Southampton Central police station is shutting this year for extensive renovations that last between months and a year, after problems have been found. It opened around 2011.
How can an 11/12 year old building be so decrepit that it needs to be shut for a year for 'refurbishment' ? The National Glass Centre is older, but I bet it's stated design life is more than 25 years.
Modern architecture - especially signature architecture - has issues.
Is the glass cracking because of stresses within itself (tempering?)? Or loads imposed on it?
No idea. I would expect the design life to be over 25 years, but might be wrong.
The Southampton Central Police station case seems much more egregious.
A more interesting set of questions on lab leak, regardless of whether that is the truth or not:
- Was there anyone who thought it was likely in Spring '20, but decided not to risk going public on the subject in case of being called 'racist'?
- Did that person(s) get in touch with HMG at least? Did Whitty etc document and brief the PM on those concerns?
- If they had gone public/raised concerns in Spring '20, could we have exerted more pressure on China to get the full deets and therefore understand the virus sooner (and save lives)
- Did anyone know there was something loose in 2019 and not inform HMG?
- Is there ability at MI6/GCHQ to get intelligence on possible pandemics? If not, should we invest in that?
- Was there a coverup by scientists who were trying to obscure their role in the labs in China? (This is the source of Leon's ire, I believe. If true, obviously a disgrace, but we should have systems in place to get round that obvious self-interest)
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the man and his mother trying it on, the the Guardian's write-up sounds so much like a lefty version of the Daily Mail.
"a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord"
And later: "a plasterer turned publican"
Why does the car he owns matter if he's earnt the money lawfully? Why is an ex-occupation relevant? (I could be called an ex-labourer).
The Guardian really are middle-class shits.
Reading through the article, and the guardian's earlier work, I think they have more than substantiated their concerns in this case.
Indeed. But their framing of it is terrible, especially given the direction the Guardian is supposed to be coming from. Sneering little shits.
Are you sure it's not your own prejudices here?
"Alison McGuinness is the mother of Robert McGuinness, a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord who was exposed by the Guardian last year for spending thousands of pounds intended for educating marginalised children on drinking, foreign trips and his pub business."
The fact he was a pub landlord is relevant if he was misspending the money on his pub business, and the Lamborghini is also relevant if he was misspending the money on his own extravagant lifestyle, no?
"Profits from the CIC should have benefited the community, but instead Robert McGuinness, a plasterer turned publican, loaned his bar business £100,000 from the company. He also spent thousands from the CIC bank account on his social life and trips to Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Thailand."
Not really seeing any sneering here either.
I think you need to get better glasses, if you cannot see the sneering. You also ignore the 'Lamborghini-driving' aspect.
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
I think that there is a strong tendency to exploitation and abuse in any institution where the clients are inconvenient to society, whether Children's Homes, Residential Social Care, Police, Prisons, etc. The nature of the work, and inherent imbalances of power are too attractive to the wrong sorts of people, whatever the rate of pay or whether state or private provision.
There are dedicated and caring staff in all these institutions of course too, quietly getting on with great work unrecognised, but the recurrent nature of these scandals does suggest a systemic problem in society, or perhaps even human nature itself.
The nature of the work will definitely attract a disproportionate amount of wrong uns of various flavours along with the hard working, caring and dedicated.
It seems very likely that better would both reduce the proportion of wrong uns, and make the remainder more motivated to challenge the wrong uns when needed.
For those that care, there is now just over 90 minutes until polls finally close in the Estonian general election. There have been a couple of interesting records already broken: Highest online participation in Estonian history, and quite likely a very high turnout overall. It seems like the voters have polarized between the Reform party and the populist EKRE, with both the Centre (SociaL Liberal) and Isamaa (Conservatives) likely to lose quite a few seats.
We will get a sense of the straws in the wind pretty quickly after the polls close.
My reading of the polls is the current coalition will get a small majority (maybe 51-53 seats) in the Riigikogu. I just wonder if you see E200 as a potential coalition partner for Reform - my guess is E200 will win 10-12 seats.
I think E200 will probably replace Isamaa. Just had the latest turnout figures and they are about 70%, looks like Turnout will be highest for some time. Some suggestion that this may not favour EKRE, but we will see very shortly.
Why are we obsessing about the lab leak when HYUFD is kindly educating us about the relative niceness of various parts of the London Borough of Bromley?
To be honest the most interesting news I have heard over the last 24 hours was retired Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon, former head of the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment saying it was his firm belief that the Russian nuclear arsenal was in no better state than the rest of their forces and NATO should stop being put off by the threat of a nuclear response.
Not sure if I was reassured or worried by that.
Tritium is $30,000 a gram. Each warhead has 5+ grams. Easy money in a small capsule. It's Russia. What do you think has happened to all of it?
Edit: Numerous accounts of inspection by international arms control inspectors seeing lots of water at the bottom of the silos. Liquid fuel missiles (most of the Russia arsenal) are quite thin skinned and corrode easily. Water vapour in the silo was a real killer for the American liquid fueled systems, when they had them.
The 'water in the bottom of silos' story has been around for years; iirc it was even in a Tom Clancy novel. Do you have recent (last ten years) sources that it's still the case? (I'm not saying it isn't, just that it's so often said, I'd like to know.)
Then there's the issue of ballistic missiles submarines, which are a whole different kettle of fish.
Edit: here's the quote from "Debt of Honor", released in 1994, nearly 30 years ago,
"You son of a bitch, Colonel Andrew Malcolm wanted to exclaim. There was a pool of icy water at the bottom of the puskatel. The intelligence estimate had been wrong again. Who would have believed it?"
A real puzzler from the Sunday Times Insight team here. Morons across the world are reduced to bemused frowns. @Nigelb@turbotubbs@kinabalu and @IanB2 are stroking their chins and scratching their tiny pin-like heads
We all know it probably came from a lab.
None of this is new evidence.
Indeed the head of the FBI cites no evidence, and is involved with US internal security rather than external espionage. What reason is there to believe he knows anything more than the Average Joe?
He may be privy to intelligence that is not available to the Average Joe. Post 9/11 I’d hope the various US agencies have become s bit more joined up in their thinking and sharing.
In this case, the message becomes the evidence, and you may wonder why the USA might want to put a little pressure on China at the moment. Note: he does not say it happened; just that it is 'most likely'. Which in itself is relatively meaningless, especially without evidence.
Now, if it was the CIA saying it, I'd listen a little more. But the FBI fairly strictly operates inside the USA only.
So if you claim that he's privy to intelligence on this, why would he be, as head of the FBI? And what is the FBI's expertise to say this?
The Department of Energy has shifted to “lab leak”
What is their expertise?
Dept of Energy is things like oil and shale and nukes. Not biology.
Lol the US Department of Energy is a lot more than that.
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
I think that there is a strong tendency to exploitation and abuse in any institution where the clients are inconvenient to society, whether Children's Homes, Residential Social Care, Police, Prisons, etc. The nature of the work, and inherent imbalances of power are too attractive to the wrong sorts of people, whatever the rate of pay or whether state or private provision.
There are dedicated and caring staff in all these institutions of course too, quietly getting on with great work unrecognised, but the recurrent nature of these scandals does suggest a systemic problem in society, or perhaps even human nature itself.
The nature of the work will definitely attract a disproportionate amount of wrong uns of various flavours along with the hard working, caring and dedicated.
It seems very likely that better would both reduce the proportion of wrong uns, and make the remainder more motivated to challenge the wrong uns when needed.
Unfortunately. The pay is so dire, that caring ones end up in Lidl on more money. So that just leaves the rest.
The joys of having a son who plays in a Southeast London and Kent under 14 football league... Team from Orpington spent the entire game effing and blinding, culminating in one of their players tearing his shirt off and trying to punch the ref while calling him a "sp*stic c*nt"... When he got sent off they tried to put another player on in his place. This is why I don't like leaving London!
Orpington has always been the rougher end of the Borough of Bromley, my parents grew up there and my sister lives in Beckenham, looks like little has changed!
Generally speaking Chislehurst is the posh end of Bromley Borough, Beckenham and Bromley Town Centre are in the middle and Orpington is the rough end
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
I think that there is a strong tendency to exploitation and abuse in any institution where the clients are inconvenient to society, whether Children's Homes, Residential Social Care, Police, Prisons, etc. The nature of the work, and inherent imbalances of power are too attractive to the wrong sorts of people, whatever the rate of pay or whether state or private provision.
There are dedicated and caring staff in all these institutions of course too, quietly getting on with great work unrecognised, but the recurrent nature of these scandals does suggest a systemic problem in society, or perhaps even human nature itself.
The nature of the work will definitely attract a disproportionate amount of wrong uns of various flavours along with the hard working, caring and dedicated.
It seems very likely that better would both reduce the proportion of wrong uns, and make the remainder more motivated to challenge the wrong uns when needed.
Unfortunately. The pay is so dire, that caring ones end up in Lidl on more money. So that just leaves the rest.
What premium would I want to work in the care sector over a supermarket job with similar hours? At least 50% I think, probably more in a supervisory capacitiy.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
No, he’s just gone to bed.
With?
Don’t. Certain images one doesn’t want In one’s head…
The joys of having a son who plays in a Southeast London and Kent under 14 football league... Team from Orpington spent the entire game effing and blinding, culminating in one of their players tearing his shirt off and trying to punch the ref while calling him a "sp*stic c*nt"... When he got sent off they tried to put another player on in his place. This is why I don't like leaving London!
Orpington has always been the rougher end of the Borough of Bromley, my parents grew up there and my sister lives in Beckenham, looks like little has changed!
Generally speaking Chislehurst is the posh end of Bromley Borough, Beckenham and Bromley Town Centre are in the middle and Orpington is the rough end
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
Now Leon’s gone we can concentrate on the more important topic. Is his output more like Judith Chalmers or Chris Kelly off Wish You Were Here? While Kelly also wrote novels I have to say I find Leon’s turn of phrase more akin to the great Chalmers.
Has he been banned again? Missed it if so. Wonder what the reason was.
No, he’s just gone to bed.
With?
Threesome apparently. Some flint knapper and a weird author.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the man and his mother trying it on, the the Guardian's write-up sounds so much like a lefty version of the Daily Mail.
"a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord"
And later: "a plasterer turned publican"
Why does the car he owns matter if he's earnt the money lawfully? Why is an ex-occupation relevant? (I could be called an ex-labourer).
The Guardian really are middle-class shits.
Reading through the article, and the guardian's earlier work, I think they have more than substantiated their concerns in this case.
Indeed. But their framing of it is terrible, especially given the direction the Guardian is supposed to be coming from. Sneering little shits.
Are you sure it's not your own prejudices here?
"Alison McGuinness is the mother of Robert McGuinness, a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord who was exposed by the Guardian last year for spending thousands of pounds intended for educating marginalised children on drinking, foreign trips and his pub business."
The fact he was a pub landlord is relevant if he was misspending the money on his pub business, and the Lamborghini is also relevant if he was misspending the money on his own extravagant lifestyle, no?
"Profits from the CIC should have benefited the community, but instead Robert McGuinness, a plasterer turned publican, loaned his bar business £100,000 from the company. He also spent thousands from the CIC bank account on his social life and trips to Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Thailand."
Not really seeing any sneering here either.
I think you need to get better glasses, if you cannot see the sneering. You also ignore the 'Lamborghini-driving' aspect.
As I said, it's no better than the Mail.
Your risk radar wouldn't flash if you saw the bloke running a children's home driving it large in a Lamborghini? Mine probably would. Is he profiteering? Because Lambos are VERY expensive. And what is this car saying about its owner? Eg is he a decent person or is he an uncaring shallow narcissist? I wouldn't leap to adverse conclusions - I hope - but these sorts of questions would arise, and imo it wouldn't be because of sneery anti-oik prejudice.
A more interesting set of questions on lab leak, regardless of whether that is the truth or not:
- Was there anyone who thought it was likely in Spring '20, but decided not to risk going public on the subject in case of being called 'racist'?
- Did that person(s) get in touch with HMG at least? Did Whitty etc document and brief the PM on those concerns?
- If they had gone public/raised concerns in Spring '20, could we have exerted more pressure on China to get the full deets and therefore understand the virus sooner (and save lives)
- Did anyone know there was something loose in 2019 and not inform HMG?
- Is there ability at MI6/GCHQ to get intelligence on possible pandemics? If not, should we invest in that?
- Was there a coverup by scientists who were trying to obscure their role in the labs in China? (This is the source of Leon's ire, I believe. If true, obviously a disgrace, but we should have systems in place to get round that obvious self-interest)
2. Where are the labs (they were famously alleged in Ukraine), what are they working on, and are there any near us? Has Porton Down been involved? Are any other UK territories involved?
3. GoF research needs to end now. No ifs, no buts, END. Safely destroy the samples, down tools, end. Now. Then there needs to be a worldwide agreement never to resume such research. That would be at least something good to come out of this shitty debacle.
4. There should be appropriate redress. Obviously 'might is right' and I don't see the US Government willingly bankrupting itself, but it should be encouraged strongly at least to offer some form of symbolical apology, if not a financial one.
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
Pay is certainly key. And with an ageing population, plus wealth increasingly correlated to age, the 'market' should drive it up, you'd have thought. But markets often don't do what it says on the tin.
Edit: Talking about social care there rather than children's homes.
It may be unfair prejudice on my part, but social care doesn't feel like the sort of thing where Private Equity ought to be interested. The risk/profit balance feels like it shouldn't match.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the man and his mother trying it on, the the Guardian's write-up sounds so much like a lefty version of the Daily Mail.
"a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord"
And later: "a plasterer turned publican"
Why does the car he owns matter if he's earnt the money lawfully? Why is an ex-occupation relevant? (I could be called an ex-labourer).
The Guardian really are middle-class shits.
Reading through the article, and the guardian's earlier work, I think they have more than substantiated their concerns in this case.
Indeed. But their framing of it is terrible, especially given the direction the Guardian is supposed to be coming from. Sneering little shits.
Are you sure it's not your own prejudices here?
"Alison McGuinness is the mother of Robert McGuinness, a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord who was exposed by the Guardian last year for spending thousands of pounds intended for educating marginalised children on drinking, foreign trips and his pub business."
The fact he was a pub landlord is relevant if he was misspending the money on his pub business, and the Lamborghini is also relevant if he was misspending the money on his own extravagant lifestyle, no?
"Profits from the CIC should have benefited the community, but instead Robert McGuinness, a plasterer turned publican, loaned his bar business £100,000 from the company. He also spent thousands from the CIC bank account on his social life and trips to Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Thailand."
Not really seeing any sneering here either.
I think you need to get better glasses, if you cannot see the sneering. You also ignore the 'Lamborghini-driving' aspect.
As I said, it's no better than the Mail.
Your risk radar wouldn't flash if you saw the bloke running a children's home driving it large in a Lamborghini? Mine probably would. Is he profiteering? Because Lambos are VERY expensive. And what is this car saying about its owner? Eg is he a decent person or is he an uncaring shallow narcissist? I wouldn't leap to adverse conclusions - I hope - but these sorts of questions would arise, and imo it wouldn't be because of sneery anti-oik prejudice.
Quite frankly I wouldn’t trust anyone who drove a Lamborghini however they came about it.
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
Pay is certainly key. And with an ageing population, plus wealth increasingly correlated to age, the 'market' should drive it up, you'd have thought. But markets often don't do what it says on the tin.
Edit: Talking about social care there rather than children's homes.
It may be unfair prejudice on my part, but social care doesn't feel like the sort of thing where Private Equity ought to be interested. The risk/profit balance feels like it shouldn't match.
The gossip from my carers; a rather mixed bunch, plus my memories of inspecting care homes, 20 years ago, leads me to believe that there are very definitely the mediocre, the good and the I wouldn’t send my dog there!
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
I think that there is a strong tendency to exploitation and abuse in any institution where the clients are inconvenient to society, whether Children's Homes, Residential Social Care, Police, Prisons, etc. The nature of the work, and inherent imbalances of power are too attractive to the wrong sorts of people, whatever the rate of pay or whether state or private provision.
There are dedicated and caring staff in all these institutions of course too, quietly getting on with great work unrecognised, but the recurrent nature of these scandals does suggest a systemic problem in society, or perhaps even human nature itself.
The nature of the work will definitely attract a disproportionate amount of wrong uns of various flavours along with the hard working, caring and dedicated.
It seems very likely that better would both reduce the proportion of wrong uns, and make the remainder more motivated to challenge the wrong uns when needed.
Unfortunately. The pay is so dire, that caring ones end up in Lidl on more money. So that just leaves the rest.
I don't think inspection alone can police these sectors as inspectors miss much, and in any case cannot be there very often.
What is needed is a culture where staff challenging abuse by speaking up, and whistleblowing are encouraged and supported. That needs a decentralisation of power rather than a hierarchical "lick up, kick down" culture.
The joys of having a son who plays in a Southeast London and Kent under 14 football league... Team from Orpington spent the entire game effing and blinding, culminating in one of their players tearing his shirt off and trying to punch the ref while calling him a "sp*stic c*nt"... When he got sent off they tried to put another player on in his place. This is why I don't like leaving London!
Orpington is in the London Borough of Bromley so it’s in the SE London side of your son’s league. I’m sure all the kids from Kent are, conversely, angels who regularly help old ladies cross the street.
Yes I always forget how far the borough of Bromley extends! I've always thought of Orpington as being in Kent. It's quite interesting the variety of teams that play in the league, generally the further out the dirtier they play although some of the Deptford teams are a bit iffy too.
Of course generally the further out of inner London you live in the Capital, the more likely you were to vote for Brexit too. Barking and Dagenham, Romford, Bexley and Orpington were all strongly for Leave, though am sure there is no connection between the 2.
Yeah the parents from the opposing team were definitely Brexit voters. Unlike in 2016 we got the right result though - we won 1-0 with a goal in the last 2 minutes after they went a man down. It was actually an absolutely blinding game, the insane level of aggro made the victory even sweeter. Forget the premier league, if you want exciting football watch an U14 game.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the man and his mother trying it on, the the Guardian's write-up sounds so much like a lefty version of the Daily Mail.
"a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord"
And later: "a plasterer turned publican"
Why does the car he owns matter if he's earnt the money lawfully? Why is an ex-occupation relevant? (I could be called an ex-labourer).
The Guardian really are middle-class shits.
Reading through the article, and the guardian's earlier work, I think they have more than substantiated their concerns in this case.
Indeed. But their framing of it is terrible, especially given the direction the Guardian is supposed to be coming from. Sneering little shits.
Are you sure it's not your own prejudices here?
"Alison McGuinness is the mother of Robert McGuinness, a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord who was exposed by the Guardian last year for spending thousands of pounds intended for educating marginalised children on drinking, foreign trips and his pub business."
The fact he was a pub landlord is relevant if he was misspending the money on his pub business, and the Lamborghini is also relevant if he was misspending the money on his own extravagant lifestyle, no?
"Profits from the CIC should have benefited the community, but instead Robert McGuinness, a plasterer turned publican, loaned his bar business £100,000 from the company. He also spent thousands from the CIC bank account on his social life and trips to Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Thailand."
Not really seeing any sneering here either.
I think you need to get better glasses, if you cannot see the sneering. You also ignore the 'Lamborghini-driving' aspect.
As I said, it's no better than the Mail.
Your risk radar wouldn't flash if you saw the bloke running a children's home driving it large in a Lamborghini? Mine probably would. Is he profiteering? Because Lambos are VERY expensive. And what is this car saying about its owner? Eg is he a decent person or is he an uncaring shallow narcissist? I wouldn't leap to adverse conclusions - I hope - but these sorts of questions would arise, and imo it wouldn't be because of sneery anti-oik prejudice.
Quite frankly I wouldn’t trust anyone who drove a Lamborghini however they came about it.
There aren't too many justifications for it. Let's just say that.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the man and his mother trying it on, the the Guardian's write-up sounds so much like a lefty version of the Daily Mail.
"a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord"
And later: "a plasterer turned publican"
Why does the car he owns matter if he's earnt the money lawfully? Why is an ex-occupation relevant? (I could be called an ex-labourer).
The Guardian really are middle-class shits.
Reading through the article, and the guardian's earlier work, I think they have more than substantiated their concerns in this case.
Indeed. But their framing of it is terrible, especially given the direction the Guardian is supposed to be coming from. Sneering little shits.
Are you sure it's not your own prejudices here?
"Alison McGuinness is the mother of Robert McGuinness, a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord who was exposed by the Guardian last year for spending thousands of pounds intended for educating marginalised children on drinking, foreign trips and his pub business."
The fact he was a pub landlord is relevant if he was misspending the money on his pub business, and the Lamborghini is also relevant if he was misspending the money on his own extravagant lifestyle, no?
"Profits from the CIC should have benefited the community, but instead Robert McGuinness, a plasterer turned publican, loaned his bar business £100,000 from the company. He also spent thousands from the CIC bank account on his social life and trips to Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Thailand."
Not really seeing any sneering here either.
I think you need to get better glasses, if you cannot see the sneering. You also ignore the 'Lamborghini-driving' aspect.
As I said, it's no better than the Mail.
Your risk radar wouldn't flash if you saw the bloke running a children's home driving it large in a Lamborghini? Mine probably would. Is he profiteering? Because Lambos are VERY expensive. And what is this car saying about its owner? Eg is he a decent person or is he an uncaring shallow narcissist? I wouldn't leap to adverse conclusions - I hope - but these sorts of questions would arise, and imo it wouldn't be because of sneery anti-oik prejudice.
Quite frankly I wouldn’t trust anyone who drove a Lamborghini however they came about it.
There aren't too many justifications for it. Let's just say that.
The joys of having a son who plays in a Southeast London and Kent under 14 football league... Team from Orpington spent the entire game effing and blinding, culminating in one of their players tearing his shirt off and trying to punch the ref while calling him a "sp*stic c*nt"... When he got sent off they tried to put another player on in his place. This is why I don't like leaving London!
Orpington is in the London Borough of Bromley so it’s in the SE London side of your son’s league. I’m sure all the kids from Kent are, conversely, angels who regularly help old ladies cross the street.
Yes I always forget how far the borough of Bromley extends! I've always thought of Orpington as being in Kent. It's quite interesting the variety of teams that play in the league, generally the further out the dirtier they play although some of the Deptford teams are a bit iffy too.
Of course generally the further out of inner London you live in the Capital, the more likely you were to vote for Brexit too. Barking and Dagenham, Romford, Bexley and Orpington were all strongly for Leave, though am sure there is no connection between the 2.
Yeah the parents from the opposing team were definitely Brexit voters. Unlike in 2016 we got the right result though - we won 1-0 with a goal in the last 2 minutes after they went a man down. It was actually an absolutely blinding game, the insane level of aggro made the victory even sweeter. Forget the premier league, if you want exciting football watch an U14 game.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the man and his mother trying it on, the the Guardian's write-up sounds so much like a lefty version of the Daily Mail.
"a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord"
And later: "a plasterer turned publican"
Why does the car he owns matter if he's earnt the money lawfully? Why is an ex-occupation relevant? (I could be called an ex-labourer).
The Guardian really are middle-class shits.
Reading through the article, and the guardian's earlier work, I think they have more than substantiated their concerns in this case.
Indeed. But their framing of it is terrible, especially given the direction the Guardian is supposed to be coming from. Sneering little shits.
Are you sure it's not your own prejudices here?
"Alison McGuinness is the mother of Robert McGuinness, a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord who was exposed by the Guardian last year for spending thousands of pounds intended for educating marginalised children on drinking, foreign trips and his pub business."
The fact he was a pub landlord is relevant if he was misspending the money on his pub business, and the Lamborghini is also relevant if he was misspending the money on his own extravagant lifestyle, no?
"Profits from the CIC should have benefited the community, but instead Robert McGuinness, a plasterer turned publican, loaned his bar business £100,000 from the company. He also spent thousands from the CIC bank account on his social life and trips to Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Thailand."
Not really seeing any sneering here either.
I think you need to get better glasses, if you cannot see the sneering. You also ignore the 'Lamborghini-driving' aspect.
As I said, it's no better than the Mail.
Your risk radar wouldn't flash if you saw the bloke running a children's home driving it large in a Lamborghini? Mine probably would. Is he profiteering? Because Lambos are VERY expensive. And what is this car saying about its owner? Eg is he a decent person or is he an uncaring shallow narcissist? I wouldn't leap to adverse conclusions - I hope - but these sorts of questions would arise, and imo it wouldn't be because of sneery anti-oik prejudice.
If it was just one children's home, it may, a little. But you don't know where he got the money for that Lamborghini from; is the home his only business, his only income. 'Lamborghini driving' might even, at a stretch, include a track-day experience, or a rental.
You can get apparently get a Aventador Convertible for under £300,000. Would you ask the same question of a council employee who had three buy-to-let houses, each worth the same amount? Or if they go on £30k holidays a year?
And yes, "what is this car saying about its owner?" is exactly what the Guardian is trying to imply. I look forward to all the cars of Guardian staff and writers becoming public knowledge, so we can decide what their cars say about them, sneeringly.
I'm not particularly interested in cars, so there's no way I'd spent that much on one. Besides, I'm a tight so-and-so. But if was into cars, I might scrimp and save for something nice. Probs not a Lambo, though.
A more interesting set of questions on lab leak, regardless of whether that is the truth or not:
- Was there anyone who thought it was likely in Spring '20, but decided not to risk going public on the subject in case of being called 'racist'?
- Did that person(s) get in touch with HMG at least? Did Whitty etc document and brief the PM on those concerns?
- If they had gone public/raised concerns in Spring '20, could we have exerted more pressure on China to get the full deets and therefore understand the virus sooner (and save lives)
- Did anyone know there was something loose in 2019 and not inform HMG?
- Is there ability at MI6/GCHQ to get intelligence on possible pandemics? If not, should we invest in that?
- Was there a coverup by scientists who were trying to obscure their role in the labs in China? (This is the source of Leon's ire, I believe. If true, obviously a disgrace, but we should have systems in place to get round that obvious self-interest)
2. Where are the labs (they were famously alleged in Ukraine), what are they working on, and are there any near us? Has Porton Down been involved? Are any other UK territories involved?
3. GoF research needs to end now. No ifs, no buts, END. Safely destroy the samples, down tools, end. Now. Then there needs to be a worldwide agreement never to resume such research. That would be at least something good to come out of this shitty debacle.
4. There should be appropriate redress. Obviously 'might is right' and I don't see the US Government willingly bankrupting itself, but it should be encouraged strongly at least to offer some form of symbolical apology, if not a financial one.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the man and his mother trying it on, the the Guardian's write-up sounds so much like a lefty version of the Daily Mail.
"a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord"
And later: "a plasterer turned publican"
Why does the car he owns matter if he's earnt the money lawfully? Why is an ex-occupation relevant? (I could be called an ex-labourer).
The Guardian really are middle-class shits.
Reading through the article, and the guardian's earlier work, I think they have more than substantiated their concerns in this case.
Indeed. But their framing of it is terrible, especially given the direction the Guardian is supposed to be coming from. Sneering little shits.
Are you sure it's not your own prejudices here?
"Alison McGuinness is the mother of Robert McGuinness, a Lamborghini-driving onetime pub landlord who was exposed by the Guardian last year for spending thousands of pounds intended for educating marginalised children on drinking, foreign trips and his pub business."
The fact he was a pub landlord is relevant if he was misspending the money on his pub business, and the Lamborghini is also relevant if he was misspending the money on his own extravagant lifestyle, no?
"Profits from the CIC should have benefited the community, but instead Robert McGuinness, a plasterer turned publican, loaned his bar business £100,000 from the company. He also spent thousands from the CIC bank account on his social life and trips to Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Thailand."
Not really seeing any sneering here either.
I think you need to get better glasses, if you cannot see the sneering. You also ignore the 'Lamborghini-driving' aspect.
As I said, it's no better than the Mail.
Your risk radar wouldn't flash if you saw the bloke running a children's home driving it large in a Lamborghini? Mine probably would. Is he profiteering? Because Lambos are VERY expensive. And what is this car saying about its owner? Eg is he a decent person or is he an uncaring shallow narcissist? I wouldn't leap to adverse conclusions - I hope - but these sorts of questions would arise, and imo it wouldn't be because of sneery anti-oik prejudice.
Quite frankly I wouldn’t trust anyone who drove a Lamborghini however they came about it.
There aren't too many justifications for it. Let's just say that.
Knew a chap who had an original Countach.
Bought it cheap, cause it needed a fair bit of work.
Every time he drove it 100 miles, something broke. He’d laugh, and weld it back together himself. Had bits remade by a custom machine shop in Bristol, IIRC. They’d laser scan it and CNC it. Usually using better metal than the original.
He has a special setup in his garage to lift the engine out - hoist, plus stuff to tip the engine at the right moments in the lift.
He did say that going to Lamborghini track days was fascinating in the social sense - the weird collection of people who owned them.
But where you are - 3rd in league, cup won, in 2 more cups - if you'd been offered this after your poor start you'd have been ecstatic. Fans get too invested in these individual 'grudge' games. They don't matter as much as is made out.
I get the impression that these childrens homes are a scandal waiting be unearthed. They seem to be quite easy to set up, lightly regulated, and the money in it is vast.
The profit motive sits uneasily with things like this imo. Then again, I see the risks of it being an arm of the state.
Fund them much better but to avoid it being siphoned off by owners, set a special minimum wage of 1.5x NMW and 2x NMW for night shifts to attract quality staff and improve retention/motivation.
I think that there is a strong tendency to exploitation and abuse in any institution where the clients are inconvenient to society, whether Children's Homes, Residential Social Care, Police, Prisons, etc. The nature of the work, and inherent imbalances of power are too attractive to the wrong sorts of people, whatever the rate of pay or whether state or private provision.
There are dedicated and caring staff in all these institutions of course too, quietly getting on with great work unrecognised, but the recurrent nature of these scandals does suggest a systemic problem in society, or perhaps even human nature itself.
The nature of the work will definitely attract a disproportionate amount of wrong uns of various flavours along with the hard working, caring and dedicated.
It seems very likely that better would both reduce the proportion of wrong uns, and make the remainder more motivated to challenge the wrong uns when needed.
Unfortunately. The pay is so dire, that caring ones end up in Lidl on more money. So that just leaves the rest.
I don't think inspection alone can police these sectors as inspectors miss much, and in any case cannot be there very often.
What is needed is a culture where staff challenging abuse by speaking up, and whistleblowing are encouraged and supported. That needs a decentralisation of power rather than a hierarchical "lick up, kick down" culture.
The Winston Smith blog, on childrens homes, was fascinating on this - whistleblowing and encouraging prosecution of staff was apparently ever present. But not the whistleblowing & prosecution that would stop grooming, for example.
The big thing that everyone looked at, apparently, was physical assault on the children by staff. So physically restraining a 12 year old from going out on a Friday night to get get in a cab with God knows who, was totally forbidden.
The picture he painted was of superficial child minding without any kind of parenting, with every keeping their head down to avoid trouble in any direction.
Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.
The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
'Bang to rights' - reminds me of what they said about Sturgeon's witness stand performance before the Salmond enquiry. She managed to bullshit herself successfully out of that. Will Boris's comittee evidence be televised? It will be compulsive viewing.
Not so sure Boris has it buttoned up as well as Sturgeon , with patsy's all in place and the committee being a bunch of thick no users.
On-topic: that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
A man walks into a greengrocer and asks for a kilo of tomatoes.
The greengrocer tells him: "That’s 50 pounds please mate".
The man is shocked - "50 pounds? Last week these tomatoes only cost me two pounds!"
"Well, today it is 50 pounds."
"But why 50 pounds? You’re having a laugh!"
Greengrocer says : "I'll explain it, - two pounds for the tomatoes, - ten pounds to pay for Brexit, - twenty pounds to pay for the Kami-Kwazi budget, - ten pounds to pay the Tory donors for their PPE that never worked
- And finally, eight pounds to pay for Boris Johnson’s legal fees.
The man silently but angrily took out a fifty pound note and gave it to the greengrocer.
The greengrocer took the fifty pound note, entered in the cash register and gave him 2 pounds back.
The man said in disbelief : "Wait, you said 50 pounds, right ? I gave you 50, why are you giving me back 2 pounds?"
But where you are - 3rd in league, cup won, in 2 more cups - if you'd been offered this after your poor start you'd have been ecstatic. Fans get too invested in these individual 'grudge' games. They don't matter as much as is made out.
Are you joking?? This is bloody Liverpool.
When I was 5 years old England won a home WC under some slightly dodgy circumstances. I am 61 and I still hear about it regularly. Its going to be a bit like that.
On-topic: that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
Other than perhaps the early weeks of the initial lockdown, the general public view seemed to be everyone else should observe the rules strictly but they could get away with their own pushing the limits of them.
Forget about Lambos, the real sign of conspicuous consumption is parking in Cambridge.
When I first moved here 25 yeas ago, and I think up to 20 years ago, you could park in one of the main city-centre car parks for a pound, all day. I'd often go into the city and spend lots of money, visit the museums etc. Sundays were good days to do it.
Mrs J and a friend just went to the theatre for the afternoon, and the car park cost £20 for five hours.
The joys of having a son who plays in a Southeast London and Kent under 14 football league... Team from Orpington spent the entire game effing and blinding, culminating in one of their players tearing his shirt off and trying to punch the ref while calling him a "sp*stic c*nt"... When he got sent off they tried to put another player on in his place. This is why I don't like leaving London!
Orpington is in the London Borough of Bromley so it’s in the SE London side of your son’s league. I’m sure all the kids from Kent are, conversely, angels who regularly help old ladies cross the street.
Yes I always forget how far the borough of Bromley extends! I've always thought of Orpington as being in Kent. It's quite interesting the variety of teams that play in the league, generally the further out the dirtier they play although some of the Deptford teams are a bit iffy too.
Of course generally the further out of inner London you live in the Capital, the more likely you were to vote for Brexit too. Barking and Dagenham, Romford, Bexley and Orpington were all strongly for Leave, though am sure there is no connection between the 2.
Yeah the parents from the opposing team were definitely Brexit voters. Unlike in 2016 we got the right result though - we won 1-0 with a goal in the last 2 minutes after they went a man down. It was actually an absolutely blinding game, the insane level of aggro made the victory even sweeter. Forget the premier league, if you want exciting football watch an U14 game.
So has Orpington Man been replaced by Orpington Ned? Maybe the Orpington players were hoping that a Millwall scout was watching.
Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.
The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
'Bang to rights' - reminds me of what they said about Sturgeon's witness stand performance before the Salmond enquiry. She managed to bullshit herself successfully out of that. Will Boris's comittee evidence be televised? It will be compulsive viewing.
Not so sure Boris has it buttoned up as well as Sturgeon , with patsy's all in place and the committee being a bunch of thick no users.
Remember that time he appeared before a committee and admitted meeting a Russian agent without his minders while he was Foreigh Secretary. Unless someone is sat next to him and operating him like Lord Charles the fool is guaranteed to balls it up
On-topic: that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
Other than perhaps the early weeks of the initial lockdown, the general public view seemed to be everyone else should observe the rules strictly but they could get away with their own pushing the limits of them.
While there were a minority* behaving like that, in general people were following the rules fairly strictly as far as I could see, throughout all the various restrictions.
A more interesting set of questions on lab leak, regardless of whether that is the truth or not:
- Was there anyone who thought it was likely in Spring '20, but decided not to risk going public on the subject in case of being called 'racist'?
- Did that person(s) get in touch with HMG at least? Did Whitty etc document and brief the PM on those concerns?
- If they had gone public/raised concerns in Spring '20, could we have exerted more pressure on China to get the full deets and therefore understand the virus sooner (and save lives)
- Did anyone know there was something loose in 2019 and not inform HMG?
- Is there ability at MI6/GCHQ to get intelligence on possible pandemics? If not, should we invest in that?
- Was there a coverup by scientists who were trying to obscure their role in the labs in China? (This is the source of Leon's ire, I believe. If true, obviously a disgrace, but we should have systems in place to get round that obvious self-interest)
The first three questions of your six are a bit nutso.
"The source of SARSCoV2 was wrongly assessed because so many people had to keep their traps shut for fear of being called racist" is on a par with "The global financial crisis was caused because there are too many public libraries in Wolverhampton".
All leading powers have biological warfare defence capability.
What a government tells its population it thinks isn't necessarily what it thinks.
On-topic: that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
Voters for a statist party backing as heavy state restrictions as possible with heavy state funding for those unable to work is not a major surprise
Mrs J and a friend just went to the theatre for the afternoon, and the car park cost £20 for five hours.
They're going to kill shops in Cambridge off.
(/ things were better in my day mode)
The problem, of course, is that lots and lots of people want to drive into and park in Cambridge, and there's just not enough space for everybody to do that. So the car park fees, among other things, try to encourage you to use other methods of transport to get into the city centre, and to not hog a space for five hours...
The tariff, incidentally, gets very expensive for five hours -- it's nearly twice the price of a four hour stay.
On-topic: that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
You seem to have missed the fact that question is about "the government's handling of the Covid-19 outbreak" in general, not about the relatively short periods when there were lockdowns.
But of course, even in relation to the lockdown periods, people may have been thinking about policy towards residential care, which has been prominently in the news.
A real puzzler from the Sunday Times Insight team here. Morons across the world are reduced to bemused frowns. @Nigelb@turbotubbs@kinabalu and @IanB2 are stroking their chins and scratching their tiny pin-like heads
We all know it probably came from a lab.
None of this is new evidence.
Indeed the head of the FBI cites no evidence, and is involved with US internal security rather than external espionage. What reason is there to believe he knows anything more than the Average Joe?
He may be privy to intelligence that is not available to the Average Joe. Post 9/11 I’d hope the various US agencies have become s bit more joined up in their thinking and sharing.
In this case, the message becomes the evidence, and you may wonder why the USA might want to put a little pressure on China at the moment. Note: he does not say it happened; just that it is 'most likely'. Which in itself is relatively meaningless, especially without evidence.
Now, if it was the CIA saying it, I'd listen a little more. But the FBI fairly strictly operates inside the USA only.
So if you claim that he's privy to intelligence on this, why would he be, as head of the FBI? And what is the FBI's expertise to say this?
The Department of Energy has shifted to “lab leak”
What is their expertise?
Dept of Energy is things like oil and shale and nukes. Not biology.
On-topic: that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
Other than perhaps the early weeks of the initial lockdown, the general public view seemed to be everyone else should observe the rules strictly but they could get away with their own pushing the limits of them.
While there were a minority* behaving like that, in general people were following the rules fairly strictly as far as I could see, throughout all the various restrictions.
*not a minority in Downing St clearly
I think most people did their best, but a lot probably pushed it a bit. My parents version of a bubble was whoever from their family who popped round for instance.
It didn’t help that the rules/laws were often nonsensical. Wearing a mask to move round a pub, taking it off when sitting down. Being forced to have separate tables outside for a cricket team who have just spent 6 hours playing cricket together.
At my workplace not being able to be at normal capacity in labs with a huge air turnover (e.g. my lab with 10 fume cupboards for a floor space of 10 by 15 m.). One way systems. I could go on.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
My guess is this is partisan filtering on what you remember about the government restrictions. Most people if they sat down and worked through all the things the government did during the various stages of the pandemic would probably find some things they thought were done well, and some they thought were done badly, including time periods when the degree of restrictions seemed right, times when they were too loose and times when they were too strict. For instance a lot of people likely were pretty unhappy about Christmas 2020 when rules were brought in very late and screwed most peoples' plans, and I think there's a fair argument that being a bit stricter earlier would have let us avoid being extremely strict at the last minute. Eat Out to Help Out is another obvious policy many would point at as being 'not strict enough'.
But your partisan lean is going to give you a default 'government good' or 'government bad' gut opinion and then you remember examples that back it up enough to feel happy ticking whatever box it is in the survey.
On-topic: that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
Other than perhaps the early weeks of the initial lockdown, the general public view seemed to be everyone else should observe the rules strictly but they could get away with their own pushing the limits of them.
While there were a minority* behaving like that, in general people were following the rules fairly strictly as far as I could see, throughout all the various restrictions.
*not a minority in Downing St clearly
I think most people did their best, but a lot probably pushed it a bit. My parents version of a bubble was whoever from their family who popped round for instance.
It didn’t help that the rules/laws were often nonsensical. Wearing a mask to move round a pub, taking it off when sitting down. Being forced to have separate tables outside for a cricket whove just spent 6 hours playing cricket together.
At my workplace not being able to be at normal capacity in labs with a huge air turnover (e.g. my lab with 10 fume cupboards for a floor space of 10 by 15 m.). One way systems. I could go on.
That's what I mean. It's the "fairly strictly" bit. As in sort of observing some stuff and sort of making up some stuff. But as you say a lot of the rules made no real sense.
One hopes we might learn something from that experience the next time, assuming there will be a next time at some point eventually.
Thanks Malc, but the surgeon doesn’t want to see me for twelve months so it’s going to be a long job. I don’t think I’ll ever walk more than a few steps again. Shall be terrorising our town with an electric wheelchair by, I hope, the summer!
After two weeks in Amesbury, I've been back on my usual route in Aldbourne. And learnt that my "usual route" is now killed. Due to cutbacks we've had to end and redistribute four of our normal routes, including mine
I've had lots of people mention that they haven't seen me for a couple of weeks (because of Amesbury) and I've had to tell them that they might not see me again. I've been quite to touched by some of the reactions to that; it seems I'm a pretty decent postie!
I've even had a few people open their door after I've delivered their letters because they've heard that I'm no longer their postie and they wanted to say thanks and goodbye
Tomorrow (my 45th birthday) I have to learn a new route, and I have no idea where
On-topic: that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
Other than perhaps the early weeks of the initial lockdown, the general public view seemed to be everyone else should observe the rules strictly but they could get away with their own pushing the limits of them.
While there were a minority* behaving like that, in general people were following the rules fairly strictly as far as I could see, throughout all the various restrictions.
*not a minority in Downing St clearly
I think most people did their best, but a lot probably pushed it a bit. My parents version of a bubble was whoever from their family who popped round for instance.
It didn’t help that the rules/laws were often nonsensical. Wearing a mask to move round a pub, taking it off when sitting down. Being forced to have separate tables outside for a cricket whove just spent 6 hours playing cricket together.
At my workplace not being able to be at normal capacity in labs with a huge air turnover (e.g. my lab with 10 fume cupboards for a floor space of 10 by 15 m.). One way systems. I could go on.
My impression was compliance with the main regs (and in spirit with all of them) was high but less so as time passed and less so for the more detailed 'micro' rules re who you met up with and what you did with them etc.
Thanks Malc, but the surgeon doesn’t want to see me for twelve months so it’s going to be a long job. I don’t think I’ll ever walk more than a few steps again. Shall be terrorising our town with an electric wheelchair by, I hope, the summer!
Some nice SUV versions about OKC, you will be able to off road as well. Good luck and best wishes.
Thanks Malc, but the surgeon doesn’t want to see me for twelve months so it’s going to be a long job. I don’t think I’ll ever walk more than a few steps again. Shall be terrorising our town with an electric wheelchair by, I hope, the summer!
All the best OKC
Banning pavement parking must help with wheelchair access as is happening here in Wales
Mrs J and a friend just went to the theatre for the afternoon, and the car park cost £20 for five hours.
They're going to kill shops in Cambridge off.
(/ things were better in my day mode)
The problem, of course, is that lots and lots of people want to drive into and park in Cambridge, and there's just not enough space for everybody to do that. So the car park fees, among other things, try to encourage you to use other methods of transport to get into the city centre, and to not hog a space for five hours...
The tariff, incidentally, gets very expensive for five hours -- it's nearly twice the price of a four hour stay.
Not quite that bad for parking in Leicester.
But with our bus service going to end soon thanks to the Con run County Council, not much alternative if you want to go into the city.
After two weeks in Amesbury, I've been back on my usual route in Aldbourne. And learnt that my "usual route" is now killed. Due to cutbacks we've had to end and redistribute four of our normal routes, including mine
I've had lots of people mention that they haven't seen me for a couple of weeks (because of Amesbury) and I've had to tell them that they might not see me again. I've been quite to touched by some of the reactions to that; it seems I'm a pretty decent postie!
I've even had a few people open their door after I've delivered their letters because they've heard that I'm no longer their postie and they wanted to say thanks and goodbye
Tomorrow (my 45th birthday) I have to learn a new route, and I have no idea where
Comments
Edit: Numerous accounts of inspection by international arms control inspectors seeing lots of water at the bottom of the silos. Liquid fuel missiles (most of the Russia arsenal) are quite thin skinned and corrode easily. Water vapour in the silo was a real killer for the American liquid fueled systems, when they had them.
There are dedicated and caring staff in all these institutions of course too, quietly getting on with great work unrecognised, but the recurrent nature of these scandals does suggest a systemic problem in society, or perhaps even human nature itself.
Edit: Talking about social care there rather than children's homes.
This government is useless at publicising good news.
The Southampton Central Police station case seems much more egregious.
- Was there anyone who thought it was likely in Spring '20, but decided not to risk going public on the subject in case of being called 'racist'?
- Did that person(s) get in touch with HMG at least? Did Whitty etc document and brief the PM on those concerns?
- If they had gone public/raised concerns in Spring '20, could we have exerted more pressure on China to get the full deets and therefore understand the virus sooner (and save lives)
- Did anyone know there was something loose in 2019 and not inform HMG?
- Is there ability at MI6/GCHQ to get intelligence on possible pandemics? If not, should we invest in that?
- Was there a coverup by scientists who were trying to obscure their role in the labs in China? (This is the source of Leon's ire, I believe. If true, obviously a disgrace, but we should have systems in place to get round that obvious self-interest)
As I said, it's no better than the Mail.
It seems very likely that better would both reduce the proportion of wrong uns, and make the remainder more motivated to challenge the wrong uns when needed.
https://unherd.com/2023/03/the-corruption-of-california/
Then there's the issue of ballistic missiles submarines, which are a whole different kettle of fish.
Edit: here's the quote from "Debt of Honor", released in 1994, nearly 30 years ago,
"You son of a bitch, Colonel Andrew Malcolm wanted to exclaim. There was a pool of icy water at the bottom of the puskatel. The intelligence estimate had been wrong again. Who would have believed it?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRujgcdAh0
So that just leaves the rest.
But surely Purley is in LB Croydon?
Croydon average house price is £435,685, Purley average house price is £563391
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/croydon.html
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/purley.html
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/03/bahrain-post-race-ramble-2023.html
If I were in Liverpool, on the other hand…
Oh, and 4-0.
1. What other outbreaks are US experiments responsible for? It is well documented that they were working on a more transmissible version of Avian Flu. We now have a highly transmissible avian flu outbreak. https://www.vox.com/2019/2/17/18225938/biologists-are-trying-to-make-bird-flu-easier-to-spread-can-we-not
2. Where are the labs (they were famously alleged in Ukraine), what are they working on, and are there any near us? Has Porton Down been involved? Are any other UK territories involved?
3. GoF research needs to end now. No ifs, no buts, END. Safely destroy the samples, down tools, end. Now. Then there needs to be a worldwide agreement never to resume such research. That would be at least something good to come out of this shitty debacle.
4. There should be appropriate redress. Obviously 'might is right' and I don't see the US Government willingly bankrupting itself, but it should be encouraged strongly at least to offer some form of symbolical apology, if not a financial one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59504521
And the same goes for nurseries.
https://www.ft.com/content/96bc7e0d-39e5-4a01-9c97-173dbe2b0e89
What is needed is a culture where staff challenging abuse by speaking up, and whistleblowing are encouraged and supported. That needs a decentralisation of power rather than a hierarchical "lick up, kick down" culture.
Unlike in 2016 we got the right result though - we won 1-0 with a goal in the last 2 minutes after they went a man down. It was actually an absolutely blinding game, the insane level of aggro made the victory even sweeter. Forget the premier league, if you want exciting football watch an U14 game.
Spurs and Newcastle champions league qualification hopes are going to be dashed by Liverpool
You can get apparently get a Aventador Convertible for under £300,000. Would you ask the same question of a council employee who had three buy-to-let houses, each worth the same amount? Or if they go on £30k holidays a year?
And yes, "what is this car saying about its owner?" is exactly what the Guardian is trying to imply. I look forward to all the cars of Guardian staff and writers becoming public knowledge, so we can decide what their cars say about them, sneeringly.
I'm not particularly interested in cars, so there's no way I'd spent that much on one. Besides, I'm a tight so-and-so. But if was into cars, I might scrimp and save for something nice. Probs not a Lambo, though.
Liverpool 6
Bought it cheap, cause it needed a fair bit of work.
Every time he drove it 100 miles, something broke. He’d laugh, and weld it back together himself. Had bits remade by a custom machine shop in Bristol, IIRC. They’d laser scan it and CNC it. Usually using better metal than the original.
He has a special setup in his garage to lift the engine out - hoist, plus stuff to tip the engine at the right moments in the lift.
He did say that going to Lamborghini track days was fascinating in the social sense - the weird collection of people who owned them.
The big thing that everyone looked at, apparently, was physical assault on the children by staff. So physically restraining a 12 year old from going out on a Friday night to get get in a cab with God knows who, was totally forbidden.
The picture he painted was of superficial child minding without any kind of parenting, with every keeping their head down to avoid trouble in any direction.
that's a huge disparity between Lab and Con voters on whether government restrictions were about right, too strict, or not strict enough during the pandemic. The Tory figures aren't surprising. Half think "about right", and the other half are almost evenly split between "too strict" and "not strict enough", with a slight tilt towards "too strict". So - basically a success with that part of the electorate.
But the Lab figures!! 54% say "not strict enough". What are people's reasons for thinking this? Were they surveyed while Partygate was on their minds, and they thought well if you're going to ask about strictness the police should certainly have been stricter with types like Boris Johnson? Or is there some other reason? What kind of additional strictness would they have liked?
Jail people for stopping during their daily runs and exchanging a few words with each other? Criminalise leaving your house without a vaccine passport?
When I was 5 years old England won a home WC under some slightly dodgy circumstances. I am 61 and I still hear about it regularly. Its going to be a bit like that.
Forget about Lambos, the real sign of conspicuous consumption is parking in Cambridge.
When I first moved here 25 yeas ago, and I think up to 20 years ago, you could park in one of the main city-centre car parks for a pound, all day. I'd often go into the city and spend lots of money, visit the museums etc. Sundays were good days to do it.
Mrs J and a friend just went to the theatre for the afternoon, and the car park cost £20 for five hours.
They're going to kill shops in Cambridge off.
(/ things were better in my day mode)
Maybe the Orpington players were hoping that a Millwall scout was watching.
*not a minority in Downing St clearly
"The source of SARSCoV2 was wrongly assessed because so many people had to keep their traps shut for fear of being called racist" is on a par with "The global financial crisis was caused because there are too many public libraries in Wolverhampton".
All leading powers have biological warfare defence capability.
What a government tells its population it thinks isn't necessarily what it thinks.
The tariff, incidentally, gets very expensive for five hours -- it's nearly twice the price of a four hour stay.
But of course, even in relation to the lockdown periods, people may have been thinking about policy towards residential care, which has been prominently in the news.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-27/how-did-covid-start-doe-lab-leak-report-has-a-key-caveat?leadSource=uverify wall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12j2Esnn-eY
It didn’t help that the rules/laws were often nonsensical. Wearing a mask to move round a pub, taking it off when sitting down. Being forced to have separate tables outside for a cricket team who have just spent 6 hours playing cricket together.
At my workplace not being able to be at normal capacity in labs with a huge air turnover (e.g. my lab with 10 fume cupboards for a floor space of 10 by 15 m.). One way systems. I could go on.
But your partisan lean is going to give you a default 'government good' or 'government bad' gut opinion and then you remember examples that back it up enough to feel happy ticking whatever box it is in the survey.
One hopes we might learn something from that experience the next time, assuming there will be a next time at some point eventually.
After two weeks in Amesbury, I've been back on my usual route in Aldbourne. And learnt that my "usual route" is now killed. Due to cutbacks we've had to end and redistribute four of our normal routes, including mine
I've had lots of people mention that they haven't seen me for a couple of weeks (because of Amesbury) and I've had to tell them that they might not see me again. I've been quite to touched by some of the reactions to that; it seems I'm a pretty decent postie!
I've even had a few people open their door after I've delivered their letters because they've heard that I'm no longer their postie and they wanted to say thanks and goodbye
Tomorrow (my 45th birthday) I have to learn a new route, and I have no idea where
Banning pavement parking must help with wheelchair access as is happening here in Wales
https://twitter.com/realpaulmartin/status/1632449236183793664?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
But with our bus service going to end soon thanks to the Con run County Council, not much alternative if you want to go into the city.