Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The election betting numbers barely moved over the past month – politicalbetting.com

24

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Oh god, here we go again.
    Great song

    https://youtu.be/WyF8RHM1OCg
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Have we done this yet?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/27/rishi-sunak-under-pressure-block-ex-ukip-david-campbell-bannerman-potential-tory-candidacy

    Who could be next? Farage.

    Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?

    DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.

    He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
    I seem to recall you being scathing and dismissive of the idea people who stood against Conservatives being permitted to rejoin the party and be reselected as candidates, even when it was pointed out it does indeed happen.
    Only if they get elected for that other party does it occasionally happen if they are willing to defect, as DCB was elected as a UKIP MEP in 2009 before defecting back to the Tories in 2011
    So, it's OK to take duplicitous shits, who don't care to serve for the party under whose banner they were elected. But it's not OK to take someone who instead chooses to switch party while not elected?
    Realpolitik
    Precisely. So it is curious you were in such denial about the party acting in such a flexible way before.
    Vicar of Bray is always braying.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    General of the French army, officer of the Legion of Honor Dominique Delavarde described the attempts of the "counteroffensive" of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a dramatic failure. “For the Ukrainians, this is a dramatic failure. But what else could be expected? We could only expect failure. It is impossible to succeed in a counteroffensive when the ratio of forces is from 3:1 to 5:1, when the Russians have well strengthened their defenses, when Russia’s superiority in artillery and aviation," the general said in a video interview.

    https://twitter.com/djuric_zlatko/status/1684236332665634816?s=20
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,145
    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    There are quiet times in the agricultural year that allow such maintenance.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    It's like working the street... but in the countryside.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
    Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Rother Valley almost manages it, with Aston Cum Aughton having 15k people, though Whiston is part of Rotherham
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Have we done this yet?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/27/rishi-sunak-under-pressure-block-ex-ukip-david-campbell-bannerman-potential-tory-candidacy

    Who could be next? Farage.

    Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?

    DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.

    He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
    I seem to recall you being scathing and dismissive of the idea people who stood against Conservatives being permitted to rejoin the party and be reselected as candidates, even when it was pointed out it does indeed happen.
    Only if they get elected for that other party does it occasionally happen if they are willing to defect, as DCB was elected as a UKIP MEP in 2009 before defecting back to the Tories in 2011
    So, it's OK to take duplicitous shits, who don't care to serve for the party under whose banner they were elected. But it's not OK to take someone who instead chooses to switch party while not elected?
    So says Vicar of Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081
    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    There are quiet times in the agricultural year that allow such maintenance.
    Yes, but even so - a dry stone wall - a single, picturesque dry stone wall - would take a team years to build. Surely, you'd think, there could have been a higher value activity that they could do during that time? Apparently not. Agriculture was astonishingly labour intensive.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Bet that was you the aristocrat putting their feet up while the peasants worked.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Yes, we are. PB is collectively better at this than you are.

    We failed Professor Peston FRS DipSHit on his viva, multiple times.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Yes, we are. PB is collectively better at this than you are.

    We failed Professor Peston FRS DipSHit on his viva, multiple times.
    I think sometimes you think you know more than you do. Listen to Michael.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    I tell a lie, it'd be the shitting in buckets that would cause the most dissonance.
    Clearly never been camping...
    I'm very much of the 'We invented civilization so we don't have to live in a tent' tribe.

    Urban slums for me all the way, none of this return to nature stuff. Unless it's glamping.
    To enjoy camping you have to start young. I love it, indeed its the best bit of music festivals for me.

    Glazing is just wrong. Either camp properly or stay in a hotel.
    If you do it with a companion, is that double glazing?
    I had a window to edit the autocorrect to glamping but got shuttered out by time.
    A tent with glass windows would be glamping, no?

    (Or clamping as autocorrect would have it.)
    https://www.regaltent.com/special-event/tent-options/glass-walls/
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    Disagree. The 80s and 90s were better than now.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Michael said:

    Interestingly Trump 9/4 for us presidency with Biden 2/1 so very close. RFK jr third favourite at 11/1.

    I will happily offer 14-1 on RFK.

    Any takers, message me on Vanilla.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Bet that was you the aristocrat putting their feet up while the peasants worked.
    This seems not only unnecessarily combative, but also insane. I don't know much about Malmesbury's real life identity, but I can infer this much: he lives in the 21st century. He wasn't an olden days aristocrat. His presence here, on this board, suggests very strongly to me that he wasn't around in the olden days.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    Also the peasants had many festivals and holidays.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
    Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
    Or, alternatively, it's obviously patent nonsense.

    Hmmm...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    When the chap said “you’ve never had it so good”, he wasn’t taking the piss. The post war economic liftoff raised everyone’s boats in a staggering way.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    Interestingly Trump 9/4 for us presidency with Biden 2/1 so very close. RFK jr third favourite at 11/1.

    I will happily offer 14-1 on RFK.

    Any takers, message me on Vanilla.
    Don't take no wooden rubles.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    Interestingly Trump 9/4 for us presidency with Biden 2/1 so very close. RFK jr third favourite at 11/1.

    I will happily offer 14-1 on RFK.

    Any takers, message me on Vanilla.
    Willing to put a million on it. Come on bet with Michael.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    Michael said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Yes, we are. PB is collectively better at this than you are.

    We failed Professor Peston FRS DipSHit on his viva, multiple times.
    I think sometimes you think you know more than you do. Listen to Michael.
    Listen to @Malmesbury when he tells you not to listen to people who speak of themselves in the third person.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    When the chap said “you’ve never had it so good”, he wasn’t taking the piss. The post war economic liftoff raised everyone’s boats in a staggering way.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom
    Would you rather be a medieval peasant or live on a sink estate in london.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    What have I been telling you, about who is behind Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaign?

    People who post vaccine denying messages from IP addesses than are on the Sorbs blacklist of compromised computers?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,145
    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    Interestingly Trump 9/4 for us presidency with Biden 2/1 so very close. RFK jr third favourite at 11/1.

    I will happily offer 14-1 on RFK.

    Any takers, message me on Vanilla.
    Willing to put a million on it. Come on bet with Michael.
    Stick your money on RFK on Betfair if you are so convinced.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    Disagree. The 80s and 90s were better than now.
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    Disagree. The 80s and 90s were better than now.
    No, that's just nostalgia talking.
    The 80s and 90s were great because I was young and my knees worked. But take the median human alive today in the world. Or in Britain, if you prefer. That median human is considerably more comfortably off today than he was then.
    British telly was better back then, I'll grant you that. But you can't look at telly in isolation: it was better because it was considerably better funded, because there were far fewer competing entertainments. Sure, look at a TV listing from 1990 and you'll be impressed. But you better had be, because there wasn't much else by way of entertainment.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    Interestingly Trump 9/4 for us presidency with Biden 2/1 so very close. RFK jr third favourite at 11/1.

    I will happily offer 14-1 on RFK.

    Any takers, message me on Vanilla.
    Willing to put a million on it. Come on bet with Michael.
    I'll wager a million dollars if you want to put $71,000 in escrow so I know you'll be good for it.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    rcs1000 said:

    What have I been telling you, about who is behind Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaign?

    People who post vaccine denying messages from IP addesses than are on the Sorbs blacklist of compromised computers?
    You are aware with your views RFK jr would consider you a crank.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    Foxy said:

    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    Interestingly Trump 9/4 for us presidency with Biden 2/1 so very close. RFK jr third favourite at 11/1.

    I will happily offer 14-1 on RFK.

    Any takers, message me on Vanilla.
    Willing to put a million on it. Come on bet with Michael.
    Stick your money on RFK on Betfair if you are so convinced.
    Trump v RFk would be fun
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What have I been telling you, about who is behind Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaign?

    People who post vaccine denying messages from IP addesses than are on the Sorbs blacklist of compromised computers?
    You are aware with your views RFK jr would consider you a crank.
    Which views of mine would he consider particularly crank-erous, do you think?
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What have I been telling you, about who is behind Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaign?

    People who post vaccine denying messages from IP addesses than are on the Sorbs blacklist of compromised computers?
    You are aware with your views RFK jr would consider you a crank.
    Which views of mine would he consider particularly crank-erous, do you think?
    Well your blind faith in vaccines is interesting.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    Also the peasants had many festivals and holidays.
    Surely you're not pursuing the line of argument that the medieval peasant had more leisure time than his 21st century equivalent?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    "Michael" has excellent chance, of becoming one of the Vicar's "true" Tory candidates.

    Realpolitik.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    Also the peasants had many festivals and holidays.
    Surely you're not pursuing the line of argument that the medieval peasant had more leisure time than his 21st century equivalent?
    They did in agricultural times yes.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Bet that was you the aristocrat putting their feet up while the peasants worked.
    This seems not only unnecessarily combative, but also insane. I don't know much about Malmesbury's real life identity, but I can infer this much: he lives in the 21st century. He wasn't an olden days aristocrat. His presence here, on this board, suggests very strongly to me that he wasn't around in the olden days.
    I do remember. In those days I had problems with the neighbours - bunch of chaps from Turkeyland kept on rocking up at the castle. The peasants did sterling work sorting them out and fixing the problem with not enough shade.

    You must excuse me. The lawyer from London is asking questions again, and I have much to do before sun up…
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    Interestingly Trump 9/4 for us presidency with Biden 2/1 so very close. RFK jr third favourite at 11/1.

    I will happily offer 14-1 on RFK.

    Any takers, message me on Vanilla.
    Willing to put a million on it. Come on bet with Michael.
    Hi Michael, so we know you're not a bullshitter can you post your current betting position on rfk ?

    I'll go first

  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26

    "Michael" has excellent chance, of becoming one of the Vicar's "true" Tory candidates.

    Realpolitik.

    If you listen to Michael you cant go far wrong.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What have I been telling you, about who is behind Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaign?

    People who post vaccine denying messages from IP addesses than are on the Sorbs blacklist of compromised computers?
    You are aware with your views RFK jr would consider you a crank.
    Which views of mine would he consider particularly crank-erous, do you think?
    You’ve missed the real issue here. It’s not who is a crank.

    But who is turning the crank, eh? Eh?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    This tweet attaching a letter purportedly from a town council in Nadine Dorries' constituency lambasting her for not resigning is funny, sure, but my main takeaway is astonishment that any constituency of 70,000 can have a largest settlement of less than 14,000 people. That's not just an area of small towns, it must be nothing but large villages!

    https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1684498168753393665#m

    Largest town in the Forest of Dean is Lydney, around 10,000.

    Ludlow's largest town would be Ludlow, at about the same size.

    Wales of course has many constituencies with almost no large towns in them. Arfon, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Ynys Môn have between them one settlement with a five figure population - Aberystwyth, which is 15,000 excluding students.
    I like to imagine sometimes what it would be like to live in historical times (well protected and funded of course), and one thing that I think would cause the most dissonance would be how empty many places will have been.

    Consider places we regard as having fairly low population density today, like Wales, but even with the swathes of low populated areas the bits where people live do still support a population something like 4x what it was just 200 years ago. What was England like when the second biggest city had only 10,000 people?

    Then think about places like Egypt which support more than 10x the population they did 200 years ago, or a place like Mongolia, which has the lowest population density of any country yet is apparently even emptier than you'd think, since half the population live in the capital city.
    Population of a number of Irish counties is still comfortably below the pre-famine level, partly because so much of the Irish population now lives in the Greater Dublin area. When you then factor in the movement of population within those counties to the towns (or cities) in those counties and the rural areas are astonishingly sparsely populated today compared to relatively recent history.

    Visited Heir Island last weekend for lunch at the cottage - very highly recommended - and there's a sign on the island stating that the permanent population is now 20, compared to over 200 at the start of the 20th century, when a large population was supported by fishing (mainly lobster boats).

    I imagine there are a lot of places even in Britain which would have a similar story, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland where large rural populations were cleared to make way for sheep, and probably more rural areas then you might imagine when you factor in the scale of urbanisation that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

    So, yes, towns and cities would have been a lot, lot smaller, but rural areas might often have been more densely populated than they are today.
    Mainly because before mechanisation took over, you needed a lot of people to work the lane. Or fish.
    Working the lane sounds a bit louche

    One thing often underestimated is the effect of barbed wire, before which keeping walls and hedges stock proof was an endless job
    My mother volunteers as a dry stone waller.
    It's very interesting, and she finds it very satisfying. But my goodness is it a labour intensive way to separate land.
    This is what I find most baffling about the olden days. So many things simply took days and days and days of labour. How did people find the time?
    About 98% of the population worked dawn to dusk. Non stop hard labour. So the other 2% could do weird shit like reading and writing.

    Manufactured items cost staggering amounts. A simple shirt was the price of an expensive Paul Smith today.
    Yes, true. Though how much easier would their days have been if the 2% hadn't been into that weird shit? Not that much, I suspect.
    The olden days sucked. There really is no better time to be alive than now.
    When the chap said “you’ve never had it so good”, he wasn’t taking the piss. The post war economic liftoff raised everyone’s boats in a staggering way.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom
    Would you rather be a medieval peasant or live on a sink estate in london.
    I'd absolutely live on a sink estate in London.
    Have you seen sink estates? The houses there aren't palaces, but they're closer to palaces than medieval hovels.

    Every winter, I marvel at the fact that for hundreds of generations, there was no such thing as central heating. Or even much in the way of insulation. Or damp-proof courses. Or nice comfy sofas. Or kettles. We really are massively fortunate.
  • MichaelMichael Posts: 26
    Pulpstar said:

    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    Interestingly Trump 9/4 for us presidency with Biden 2/1 so very close. RFK jr third favourite at 11/1.

    I will happily offer 14-1 on RFK.

    Any takers, message me on Vanilla.
    Willing to put a million on it. Come on bet with Michael.
    Hi Michael, so we know you're not a bullshitter can you post your current betting position on rfk ?

    I'll go first

    Liability only 930. RCS earns that in an hour.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What have I been telling you, about who is behind Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. campaign?

    People who post vaccine denying messages from IP addesses than are on the Sorbs blacklist of compromised computers?
    You are aware with your views RFK jr would consider you a crank.
    Which views of mine would he consider particularly crank-erous, do you think?
    Well your blind faith in vaccines is interesting.
    What blind faith?

    Or, do you mean my disputing the idea that 1-in-35 people who got the Covid vaccine have developed myocarditis?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Sorry folks, but I banned the Russian troll.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Anyone on here taken the Sputnik "vaccine"?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081
    Robert, this one's rubbish. Send him away.
    Oh, you have. Thanks.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Anyone on here taken the Sputnik "vaccine"?

    da.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Robert, this one's rubbish. Send him away.
    Oh, you have. Thanks.

    I don't mind the high quality Russian trolls, but that one was bottom of the barrel. I'm actually a bit insulted that they can't be bothered sending us the more subtle and intelligent ones any more.
    War is hell.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    rcs1000 said:

    Sorry folks, but I banned the Russian troll.

    Please sir, Mr @rcs1000, Sir, can we get a better Russian troll? One of the amusing ones?

    We could keep it in Mr @JosiasJessop spare scientist coops and take turns feeding it?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,081
    edited July 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Robert, this one's rubbish. Send him away.
    Oh, you have. Thanks.

    I don't mind the high quality Russian trolls, but that one was bottom of the barrel. I'm actually a bit insulted that they can't be bothered sending us the more subtle and intelligent ones any more.
    Yes - the better ones start with some pleasantries, hint at a back story (though always hazily).

    This one just barged straight in with vaccine-crankery.

    Strikes me as a weird topic to bang on about. It's not even particularly contentious. It just flags you as a troll.

    I enjoyed his sashay into medieval history, mind you. We don't often get that from the trolls.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    Saturday already?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,959
    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    It may be them, it maybe someone else engaging in some weird gag, either explanation is pretty unsatisfying.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
    Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
    Here's the study:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

    It found signs of mild transient myocardial injury from Covid booster vaccination in 1 in 35 people. Total bollocks that 50% of them will be dead in 5 years.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    It’s about trying to change the background in various online spaces.

    Stir up controversy, spread conspiracies. Hell, there have been interviews with people working in the troll farms, describing what they do and why.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    No, really?

    Former US President Donald Trump has received further charges in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, court documents reveal.

    Mr Trump received an additional charge of wilful retention of defence information, and two new charges of obstruction, the justice department said.

    An additional person, Mar-a-Lago staff member Carlos de Oliveira, has also been indicted in the case...

    According to the new court documents, Mr Nauta and Mr de Oliveira conspired to delete footage from security cameras after the Department of Justice issued a subpoena asking for surveillance footage of the basement where it said confidential documents were held.

    In the court documents, Mr de Oliveira is claimed to have texted another employee who was the director of information technology that "the boss" wanted the server deleted.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66333370

    He's going to get away with it, but really he seems rather sloppy in his attempts to cover things up.

    And remember all he had to do was hand stuff back when asked and none of this would be happening.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,069
    edited July 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58441662

    Pro-Kremlin trolls target news website comments, researchers say

    "Sometimes those posting were accused by others on the site of being Russian trolls but in most cases they did not respond.

    These comments were then picked up by Russian media organisations who took the original news story and used the comments to construct a Russian language news story with a particular slant suggesting "The British think X or Y".

    These were published to suggest extensive support among Western citizens for Russia or President Vladimir Putin or for a particular policy.

    These would be published in Russia, but also other European countries, particularly Bulgaria. These would then be further amplified on social media platforms, including Telegram."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    Why does my local council fix potholes with what appears to be a species of black polyfilla that lasts about four weeks or until it rains? Same deal.

    Total institutionalised incompetence and not giving a fuck in all cases.
    They do it to stop people who like to speed in their cars.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,959

    I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.

    However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.

    Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    Governments of all stripes do things that a completely useless. Some minor bureaucrat says run a fractal, hybrid information disruptor op in the west and push these five lines. An even lesser bureaucrat subs it out to somebody who employs the cheapest anglophone idiots they can find and tells them to push the five lines on any platform in the west. They report back up the chain that it's all going terrifically well and can we get paid please?

    Why do Sunak and Swella keep spouting off about boats when it's not going to change anything? Same deal.

    Why does my local council fix potholes with what appears to be a species of black polyfilla that lasts about four weeks or until it rains? Same deal.

    Total institutionalised incompetence and not giving a fuck in all cases.
    The funny thing is we see Russian trolls every week and yet people deny Russian attempts to influence our politics.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302

    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    Governments of all stripes do things that a completely useless. Some minor bureaucrat says run a fractal, hybrid information disruptor op in the west and push these five lines. An even lesser bureaucrat subs it out to somebody who employs the cheapest anglophone idiots they can find and tells them to push the five lines on any platform in the west. They report back up the chain that it's all going terrifically well and can we get paid please?

    Why do Sunak and Swella keep spouting off about boats when it's not going to change anything? Same deal.

    Why does my local council fix potholes with what appears to be a species of black polyfilla that lasts about four weeks or until it rains? Same deal.

    Total institutionalised incompetence and not giving a fuck in all cases.
    The funny thing is we see Russian trolls every week and yet people deny Russian attempts to influence our politics.
    You see how bad they are at it every week, yet some people think Russia's ability to manipulate our electorate exceeds Peter Mandelson and Lynton Crosby rolled into one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    Governments of all stripes do things that a completely useless. Some minor bureaucrat says run a fractal, hybrid information disruptor op in the west and push these five lines. An even lesser bureaucrat subs it out to somebody who employs the cheapest anglophone idiots they can find and tells them to push the five lines on any platform in the west. They report back up the chain that it's all going terrifically well and can we get paid please?

    Why do Sunak and Swella keep spouting off about boats when it's not going to change anything? Same deal.

    Why does my local council fix potholes with what appears to be a species of black polyfilla that lasts about four weeks or until it rains? Same deal.

    Total institutionalised incompetence and not giving a fuck in all cases.
    The funny thing is we see Russian trolls every week and yet people deny Russian attempts to influence our politics.
    You see how bad they are at it every week, yet some people think Russia's ability to manipulate our electorate exceeds Peter Mandelson and Lynton Crosby rolled into one.
    Ahhhh... but that's how smart they are. You are a real Russian troll, while @Michael and others take the heat.

    Clever, huh?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,417
    edited July 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.

    However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.

    Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
    The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    MoD officials emailed state secrets to Putin ally by mistake
    Messages were sent to Mali instead of the Pentagon

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mod-officials-emailed-state-secrets-to-putin-ally-by-mistake-m37q5blxk (£££)

    A follow-up to last week's story about American secrets being mistakenly emailed to Mali (.ml as opposed to .mil for the US military).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.

    However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.

    Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
    The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
    To lose 49 of 57 seats is a fairly traumatic experience.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.

    However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.

    Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
    The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
    "Those Libdems you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around Tweeting, and not mating. You sold me... queer LibDems. I want my money back!"
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    Outcry over baby’s death behind bars
    A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell

    Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.

    The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    Is Bridget Phillipson Labour’s rising star?
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bridget-phillipson-labour-mp-interview-keir-starmer-txwlwn78d
    (£££)

    Times readers impressed by Bridget Phillipson should note she is a bigger price with the books than on Betfair.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    hark not to aardvark of anarchy

    (how can you argue against that?)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    kamski said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
    Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
    Here's the study:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

    It found signs of mild transient myocardial injury from Covid booster vaccination in 1 in 35 people. Total bollocks that 50% of them will be dead in 5 years.
    A lot of viral infections will do the same (Covid or flu significantly worse, of course).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    kle4 said:

    No, really?

    Former US President Donald Trump has received further charges in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, court documents reveal.

    Mr Trump received an additional charge of wilful retention of defence information, and two new charges of obstruction, the justice department said.

    An additional person, Mar-a-Lago staff member Carlos de Oliveira, has also been indicted in the case...

    According to the new court documents, Mr Nauta and Mr de Oliveira conspired to delete footage from security cameras after the Department of Justice issued a subpoena asking for surveillance footage of the basement where it said confidential documents were held.

    In the court documents, Mr de Oliveira is claimed to have texted another employee who was the director of information technology that "the boss" wanted the server deleted.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66333370

    He's going to get away with it, but really he seems rather sloppy in his attempts to cover things up.

    And remember all he had to do was hand stuff back when asked and none of this would be happening.

    LOL
    So he literally asked someone to wipe his private server? Imagine being Hillary Clinton and just having to walk around all the time without constantly punching stuff.
    https://twitter.com/davidlitt/status/1684717074482974721

    I wouldn't be so sure he's going to get away with it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    The 35th Brigade reports about liberation of Staromaiorske in Donetsk Oblast, an area of intense fighting.

    The village of Urozhaine should be next.

    https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1684632413123518464
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    Scientists revived a female microscopic roundworm that spent the last 46,000 years in suspended animation deep in the Siberian permafrost. It started having babies in a laboratory dish.
    https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1684704131854860288
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.

    However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.

    Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
    The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
    To lose 49 of 57 seats is a fairly traumatic experience.
    So traumatic, that it makes you take a seven-figure salary from one of the world’s most evil companies?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.

    However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.

    Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
    The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
    To lose 49 of 57 seats is a fairly traumatic experience.
    So traumatic, that it makes you take a seven-figure salary from one of the world’s most evil companies?
    "world’s most evil companies"

    I'm not a fan of FB or Meta, but that's an absolutely ridiculous comment to make.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,005

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.

    However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.

    Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
    The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
    To lose 49 of 57 seats is a fairly traumatic experience.
    So traumatic, that it makes you take a seven-figure salary from one of the world’s most evil companies?
    "world’s most evil companies"

    I'm not a fan of FB or Meta, but that's an absolutely ridiculous comment to make.
    It is not actually any company is evil but they have to be legally amoral, public companies have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to maximise returns. If they said we wont do a deal with country a or group b because while it would make us billions they aren't nice people shareholders can sue them over it.

    Want to change it you need to change that law. However that also has knock on effects because there is a difference between not doing a deal because the other party of evil genocidal maniacs and they have views we disagree with.

    How to draw the line where a company can refuse and not face litigation is hard
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scientists revived a female microscopic roundworm that spent the last 46,000 years in suspended animation deep in the Siberian permafrost. It started having babies in a laboratory dish.
    https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1684704131854860288

    This sounds like the start of some horrible movie.
    Kurt Russell's getting a bit old for such shenanigans.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.

    However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.

    Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
    The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
    To lose 49 of 57 seats is a fairly traumatic experience.
    So traumatic, that it makes you take a seven-figure salary from one of the world’s most evil companies?
    Aramco ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,145
    kamski said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
    Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
    Here's the study:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

    It found signs of mild transient myocardial injury from Covid booster vaccination in 1 in 35 people. Total bollocks that 50% of them will be dead in 5 years.
    It's an interesting paper. Worth noting that this was a biochemical response and none developed clinical myocarditis. The authors also stress that myocarditis caused by covid infection is both more common and more severe than that from vaccine, so the balance of risk strongly favours vaccination.

    Increasingly it is evident that covid is now best thought of as a micro vascular inflammation with transmission by respiratory infection. The rate of cardiac and other vascular events is significantly higher in the 6 months after infection.

    There is this interesting large scale Korean study which shows that vaccinated patients have a lower rate of cardiac and cerebrovascular events than unvaccinated. Being vaccinated does seem to be protective from such events:

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2794753?guestAccessKey=920e3d37-ccca-4697-8d17-50199e6352ca&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=072222
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,145
    edited July 2023
    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    Governments of all stripes do things that a completely useless. Some minor bureaucrat says run a fractal, hybrid information disruptor op in the west and push these five lines. An even lesser bureaucrat subs it out to somebody who employs the cheapest anglophone idiots they can find and tells them to push the five lines on any platform in the west. They report back up the chain that it's all going terrifically well and can we get paid please?

    Why do Sunak and Swella keep spouting off about boats when it's not going to change anything? Same deal.

    Why does my local council fix potholes with what appears to be a species of black polyfilla that lasts about four weeks or until it rains? Same deal.

    Total institutionalised incompetence and not giving a fuck in all cases.
    This is an interesting twitter thread which shows how automated "spreader" accounts were seemingly used to amplify anti-ULEZ tweets in the twitter algorithm recently. Quite who is funding this is unclear.

    https://twitter.com/valent_projects/status/1684591764160536578?t=t6GVjXYYDEd_FidMCpGUTg&s=19

    I think such Social Media astroturfing and trolling is now a permanent feature of political life, and not just in the UK.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why do Russian trolls bother with this site? They aren't going to change any minds on here.

    Governments of all stripes do things that a completely useless. Some minor bureaucrat says run a fractal, hybrid information disruptor op in the west and push these five lines. An even lesser bureaucrat subs it out to somebody who employs the cheapest anglophone idiots they can find and tells them to push the five lines on any platform in the west. They report back up the chain that it's all going terrifically well and can we get paid please?

    Why do Sunak and Swella keep spouting off about boats when it's not going to change anything? Same deal.

    Why does my local council fix potholes with what appears to be a species of black polyfilla that lasts about four weeks or until it rains? Same deal.

    Total institutionalised incompetence and not giving a fuck in all cases.
    This is an interesting twitter thread which shows how automated "spreader" accounts were seemingly used to amplify anti-ULEZ tweets in the twitter algorithm recently. Quite who is funding this is unclear.

    https://twitter.com/valent_projects/status/1684591764160536578?t=t6GVjXYYDEd_FidMCpGUTg&s=19

    I think such Social Media astroturfing and trolling is now a permanent feature of political life, and not just in the UK.
    Good morning

    I understand the court is due to announce it's ruling on ULEZ at 10.00am today
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
    Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
    Here's the study:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

    It found signs of mild transient myocardial injury from Covid booster vaccination in 1 in 35 people. Total bollocks that 50% of them will be dead in 5 years.
    It's an interesting paper. Worth noting that this was a biochemical response and none developed clinical myocarditis. The authors also stress that myocarditis caused by covid infection is both more common and more severe than that from vaccine, so the balance of risk strongly favours vaccination.

    Increasingly it is evident that covid is now best thought of as a micro vascular inflammation with transmission by respiratory infection. The rate of cardiac and other vascular events is significantly higher in the 6 months after infection.

    There is this interesting large scale Korean study which shows that vaccinated patients have a lower rate of cardiac and cerebrovascular events than unvaccinated. Being vaccinated does seem to be protective from such events:

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2794753?guestAccessKey=920e3d37-ccca-4697-8d17-50199e6352ca&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=072222
    To clarify: the Korean study shows lower rates in the vaccinated of acute myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke after COVID-19 infection, rather than a general protection.

    The other study is interesting because it does show a negative effect from a vaccination that trials didn't pick up, and that you aren't going to easily see unless you specifically look for it, despite billions of doses given. It's a shame that because of crazy and/or malicious anti-vaxxer fanatics it's difficult to even talk about these things.

    I'm sure you're right this study doesn't affect the balance of risk.

    There's a curious effect with "quasi-ineffective" vaccines. We aren't going to get herd immunity to Covid no matter how many people get vaccinated. This means on the one hand there is less of a moral imperative on an individual to get vaccinated (do your bit for herd immunity to protect those who can't get vaccinated etc). On the other hand potentially less reason not to get vaccinated for selfish reasons (relying on herd immunity created by others getting vaccinated).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,161
    Nigelb said:

    Scientists revived a female microscopic roundworm that spent the last 46,000 years in suspended animation deep in the Siberian permafrost. It started having babies in a laboratory dish.
    https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1684704131854860288

    Raises the chances of life on other planets, I guess.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,475
    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.

    The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/channel-migrant-marquees-summer-arrivals-uk-2023-krbcxv9fg

    Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
    It probably was.
    What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
    That’s rather an unpleasant post

    And probably libellous

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    edited July 2023

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.

    The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/channel-migrant-marquees-summer-arrivals-uk-2023-krbcxv9fg

    Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
    It probably was.
    What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
    That’s rather an unpleasant post

    And probably libellous

    Braverman is a disgrace but those comments by @nico679 are a step far too far
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,475
    edited July 2023
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I was slightly surprised to learn yesterday that our neighbours have just got engaged because, old-fashioned though this makes me, their child - a bonny boy, was born last November and they bought and have lived in the house for yonks. A lovely couple, the same age as my children - they used to play together during summer holidays.

    I kinda yearn for the traditional order: meeting - courtship - move in - marriage - babies - several decades later wondering where the hell the time has gone etc.,.

    I have been listening to Stephanie Coontz book "Marriage - a History" and it seems that order not very traditional at all, indeed quite a recent and shortlived version of marriage.
    So like many things people believe to be longstanding (and thus traditional).
    Yes, the postwar type of marriage was a fairly modern innovation it seems. A fascinating listen and some really interesting ideas, how marriage was until the nineteenth century very little about love and mostly about economic alliances big and small, and also control of property.
    Had to be pretty practical I imagine - everyone working on something, from the parents down to the children. I wonder what the medieval equivalent of a shotgun wedding was too.
    It seems that many weddings before the 19th century were unchurched, particularly in the social classes without much property. People were married if they said they were.

    Abortion, infanticide and abandoning of
    foundling all reasonably common too.
    It’s why you have organisations like Coram today
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,145
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    kamski said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
    Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
    Here's the study:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

    It found signs of mild transient myocardial injury from Covid booster vaccination in 1 in 35 people. Total bollocks that 50% of them will be dead in 5 years.
    It's an interesting paper. Worth noting that this was a biochemical response and none developed clinical myocarditis. The authors also stress that myocarditis caused by covid infection is both more common and more severe than that from vaccine, so the balance of risk strongly favours vaccination.

    Increasingly it is evident that covid is now best thought of as a micro vascular inflammation with transmission by respiratory infection. The rate of cardiac and other vascular events is significantly higher in the 6 months after infection.

    There is this interesting large scale Korean study which shows that vaccinated patients have a lower rate of cardiac and cerebrovascular events than unvaccinated. Being vaccinated does seem to be protective from such events:

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2794753?guestAccessKey=920e3d37-ccca-4697-8d17-50199e6352ca&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=072222
    To clarify: the Korean study shows lower rates in the vaccinated of acute myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke after COVID-19 infection, rather than a general protection.

    The other study is interesting because it does show a negative effect from a vaccination that trials didn't pick up, and that you aren't going to easily see unless you specifically look for it, despite billions of doses given. It's a shame that because of crazy and/or malicious anti-vaxxer fanatics it's difficult to even talk about these things.

    I'm sure you're right this study doesn't affect the balance of risk.

    There's a curious effect with "quasi-ineffective" vaccines. We aren't going to get herd immunity to Covid no matter how many people get vaccinated. This means on the one hand there is less of a moral imperative on an individual to get vaccinated (do your bit for herd immunity to protect those who can't get vaccinated etc). On the other hand potentially less reason not to get vaccinated for selfish reasons (relying on herd immunity created by others getting vaccinated).
    I think though that with the endemic nature of covid, and the high infectivity of it, most of us will catch it annually or so.

    We don't yet know if the heightened risk of cardiac and vascular events is different with the new variants.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66328098

    I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,475
    rcs1000 said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    Cookie said:

    Michael said:

    There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%

    https://twitter.com/chrislittlewoo8/status/1684303694857113607?s=20

    Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
    Of course you are a great medical expert.
    Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now.
    Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
    Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
    Or, alternatively, it's obviously patent nonsense.

    Hmmm...
    I don’t think you can patent nonsense?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66328098

    I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.

    It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    "Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.

    In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/tesla-exaggerated-ev-range-so-much-that-drivers-thought-cars-were-broken/
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,475

    Outcry over baby’s death behind bars
    A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell

    Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.

    The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)

    I suspect there would be unintended consequences of a policy saying no pregnant women should ever be jailed

  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,558

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66328098

    I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.

    If Monzo are lying about having a policy that they do not accept political party accounts and that her account was opened in error then she should also get everyone’s support.

    It appears that they also don’t accept Trusts and other organisations so looks like an error when the account opened however I don’t see how AML tipping off rules would stop them from giving her the precise reason for closing her account so banks need to use their brains and not just treat everything the same as it’s less hassle.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,475
    edited July 2023

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66328098

    I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.

    Well Monzo has a policy of not allowing political parties to have accounts.

    So it’s not a judgement on her views
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,772

    "Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.

    In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/tesla-exaggerated-ev-range-so-much-that-drivers-thought-cars-were-broken/

    You mean, a company run by Elon Musk wasn’t telling the truth?

    I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
This discussion has been closed.