I've seen a figure of 1.5 million homes in the UK without the Internet.
That's not an insignificant number and explains why we continue to have this paradox of letters for hospital appointments for example.
As others have said, it's mainly but not exclusively older people - I suspect we'll see younger families eschewing the Internet in time as the digital generation fears the onset of digital degeneration.
It's not so much trying to put Pandora back in her box (or router) but perhaps a rebalancing of life's requirements and priorities.
The "analogue" world isn't just about not having Internet, a smart phone or multiple email addresses. It's also about how organisations function and looking for example at business processes beyond a spreadsheet and exploring other possibilites.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
If you get the chance, try The Fish Works in Largs.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
If you get the chance, try The Fish Works in Largs.
The Tyndrum one used to be brilliant but they've taken advantage of their monopoly now - prices are extortionate and quality has fallen.
The severe lack of decent food on the Lochaber to Edinburgh drive is always disappointing after an icy day on the hill. The contrast with the Lake District...
With an ageing population, we probably require more NHS, not less.
I assume "NHS" is being used as a catch-all to include care, frontline GP services, health education and the whole gamut of areas related to health (such as home improvements to accommodate OT equipment such as commodes, hoists and stair lifts to allow people with mobility and other issues to remain in their own homes as long as possible).
We hear a lot from some bemoaning obesity in children and calling for better health education but I'd have thought i older people (a not insignificant part of the population) also need health education on how to avoid strokes, heart problems and generally how to maintain core health past 60, 70 and even 80.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
If you get the chance, try The Fish Works in Largs.
Overpriced. IMHO, Gino's is the best chip shop in Largs.
Remember when you lot believed the virus came from "the wet market"?!
"In a closed-door session scheduled for January 8–9, the committee plans on asking Fauci about his involvement in covering up gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, where it is believed Covid-19 originated"
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
The Tories are going to lose so many council seats in May. These seats were the ones that should have been contested in 2020, but elections were delayed until 2021 because of Covid. The Tories did very well that year, NEV was Con 40%, Lab 30%. A repeat of 2023 would mean an 8 or 9% swing* - shellacking territory.
Using this as a stepping stone to an autumn election would be a less than ideal strategy for Sunak.
So, the argument here is that in order to avoid an 8-9% swing against them, and the concomitant shellacking in the May local elections*, they should take a 9-10% swing against them at a general election and hence an even bigger shellacking? I think I can see a problem in that?
* Not that it would; it would just mask those losses.
The argument is threefold. Firstly, having the GE and LE concurrently will make the LE results less bad, as there are many Tories not inclined to bother voting in an LE who would turn out at a GE. Secondly, appallingly bad LE results will poison the rest of the year for the Tories, providing a poor backdrop to a following GE. And thirdly, the LE disaster would put Sunak’s leadership into the spotlight at the worst possible time.
Against which, - No 10 won't give a stuff about the local election results, if held on the same day as a GE drubbing. - The rest of the year is going to be poisoned anyway, but would be made even worse by an appallingly bad *GE* drubbing; - I agree that bad LE results set (or play into) a bad narrative. But the problem is the underlying position, not the revelation of it; - A LE disaster would put Sunak's leadership into the spotlight. But a GE disaster would do so even more. Why choose the latter over the former?
Because the latter is unavoidable, and/or something might turn up. Being evicted before the election is avoidable.
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
Oh FFS
"This is quite bad. A group of virologists wanted to do gain-of-function research on COVID viruses in Wuhan in ways that closely matched the SARS-CoV-2 virus that's killed 8+ million, but tried to hide the Wuhan linkages and got a lot of help in doing so from science journalists."
Do I really need to spell this out? A group of scientists decided to do dodgy/illegal gain of function research on novel bat coronaviruses in the one lab in the world equipped to do this, in Wuhan - with loads of bats fron Yunnan - and they applied for research funding from the USA and when it was refused (as being too dangerous), they decided to go ahead anyway and do it - knowingly - in bio-insecure labs in Wuhan at BSL2 level and then 300 metres away from this dodgy lab a weirdly pathogenic novel bat coronavirus emerged in a market (which doesn't sell bats) AND YOU ARE STILL CLAIMING IT IS A FUCKING ACCIDENT
I mean, there is a point at which you need to stop commenting on this. I suggest that is now
They assess it was a tornado at T5 on the 10 point tornado scale, graded as an Intense tornado, but below numerous grades of devastating tornadoes.
Looking at some of the published details of the tornado compared with what is typical of T5:
Wind speeds: 137-160mph. I saw report of 82mph measured but I don't know how close this was to the track or how official
Track length: 3-6 miles. From reports of damage, from Hough Hill, south east of Stalybridge town centre, to Carrbrook is about 2.5 miles. If, as stated, damage was reported over the town boundary into Mossley, that would take it above a 3 mile track.
Track width: 50-100m.
The track, once it has dropped off the Hough Hill, looks to have travelled fairly steadily NE-NNE along the east side of the River Tame. Supercell thunderstorms do almost always travel NE, and perhaps the alignment with the river valley allowed the tornado to travel such a distance.
It likely skirted the town centre quite closely, and evacuation to Dukinfield town hall, 2 miles further west, probably attests to that.
It may be fortunate that the width of the residential areas along the valley are themselves only typically a couple of hundred meters along that side of the valley, with abandoned industrial areas to the west along the eastern bank of the Tame (prior chemical contamination) and farmland further to the east, and the tornado did traverse agricultural land for some of its path.
It looks like the touch points with residential areas were along the main B6175 road in Millbrook (the older tall red brick terraces that lost full roofs are typically on the main road, a 1 mile section of the road was closed and I think I recognise the fallen wall from a churchyard along that section).
Further along it appears to have touched the bits of Carrbrook close to the moorland, this is the bit of valley that was evacuated 4-5 years back from moorland fires, as it is one of the few spots where there aren't at least a couple of farmer's fields to act as a firebreak.
How's that going? I am doing 5K every day for 30 days before I start training for my next half
Not too bad, thanks. I gave up on my marathon-a-week plan after I got Covid over Easter - it knocked me out for seven or eight weeks, after which I stood little chance of catching up, sadly. I still did 15 or 16 over the first half of the year. Quite proud of that, despite not reaching my target.
My current little scheme is teaching myself to swim - at least, I can swim, but not well. I can do 1,500 metres backstroke, but I can barely do a 25m length front crawl. It seems my little brain cannot cope with counting strokes, kicking legs, moving my arms and breathing at the same time - at least without taking in mouthfuls of water!
Good luck with your running - it sounds like you've got a considered plan there.
Thank you and good luck with your swimming. I've always hated swimming, perhaps I should give it another go now I am older.
I find at this time of the year, running helps me to get my mind off work and makes the colder outside tolerable.
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
Oh FFS
"This is quite bad. A group of virologists wanted to do gain-of-function research on COVID viruses in Wuhan in ways that closely matched the SARS-CoV-2 virus that's killed 8+ million, but tried to hide the Wuhan linkages and got a lot of help in doing so from science journalists."
Do I really need to spell this out? A group of scientists decided to do dodgy/illegal gain of function research on novel bat coronaviruses in the one lab in the world equipped to do this, in Wuhan - with loads of bats fron Yunnan - and they applied for research funding from the USA and when it was refused (as being too dangerous), they decided to go ahead anyway and do it - knowingly - in bio-insecure labs in Wuhan at BSL2 level and then 300 metres away from this dodgy lab a weirdly pathogenic novel bat coronavirus emerged in a market (which doesn't sell bats) AND YOU ARE STILL CLAIMING IT IS A FUCKING ACCIDENT
I mean, there is a point at which you need to stop commenting on this. I suggest that is now
Why are you so obsessed with people not being allowed to have different opinions to you? I work in a life sciences department. Do you even know what BSL2 entails, or any of the other stuff you post from twitter or Reddit?
It is not settled and definitive. No-one has proven that covid is an artificially mutated virus. Except in your head, perhaps.
And you don’t get to decide who posts about things on PB.
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
The committee in question, that is putting forward this lab leak position, is a Republican-controlled committee, chaired by Brad Wenstrup, a podiatrist, who contends that there was mass fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and has advanced other nutty conspiracy theories. I am unclear how nutty conspiracy theorist might believe in a COVID-19 nutty conspiracy theory is news.
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
Oh FFS
"This is quite bad. A group of virologists wanted to do gain-of-function research on COVID viruses in Wuhan in ways that closely matched the SARS-CoV-2 virus that's killed 8+ million, but tried to hide the Wuhan linkages and got a lot of help in doing so from science journalists."
Do I really need to spell this out? A group of scientists decided to do dodgy/illegal gain of function research on novel bat coronaviruses in the one lab in the world equipped to do this, in Wuhan - with loads of bats fron Yunnan - and they applied for research funding from the USA and when it was refused (as being too dangerous), they decided to go ahead anyway and do it - knowingly - in bio-insecure labs in Wuhan at BSL2 level and then 300 metres away from this dodgy lab a weirdly pathogenic novel bat coronavirus emerged in a market (which doesn't sell bats) AND YOU ARE STILL CLAIMING IT IS A FUCKING ACCIDENT
I mean, there is a point at which you need to stop commenting on this. I suggest that is now
Why are you so obsessed with people not being allowed to have different opinions to you? I work in a life sciences department. Do you even know what BSL2 entails, or any of the other stuff you post from twitter or Reddit?
It is not settled and definitive. No-one has proven that covid is an artificially mutated virus. Except in your head, perhaps.
And you don’t get to decide who posts about things on PB.
But your position is now idiotic, and maintained by a tiny minority on TwitterX, in the face of utterly monumental circumstantial evidence. Indeed your position is now maintained by about 3 virologists, I can basically name them. Everyone else has gone quiet, or slunk away in shame
The case is as good as closed. It came from the lab
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
It wouldn't have been engineered; it would have happened organically.
The first thing to pin down in this counterfactual is when Corbyn became PM, and on what basis. Both matter massively. In 2017 - by far the more likely - it's not difficult to construct a narrative where the Tories screw up even more during the campaign (or earlier), and there's an anti-Tory / Brexit-sceptic majority. In 2019, that's much harder - though had the May government fallen in Spring 2019, who knows what parliament might have resulted.
But we do know that after the Labour MPs No Confidenced Corbyn by 80-20, then lost their challenge, they pretty much all fell back into line. That effect would have been magnified several times had Corbyn's mandate come from the electorate rather than the party.
Either way though, how Corbyn handled Salisbury, Brexit, Ukraine or Covid - to name just the most obvious policy challenges - could have led to his downfall. He could have seriously alienated his MPs, coalition colleagues and public on any of them. And had he led a minority government, that could have ended his government. Indeed, in a weak 2019 win, the Lib Dems might have been able to demand a different PM as their price of support, though Labour could (and probably would) have said 'no'.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
The interpretation I put on @SandyRentool proposition was directly after the election. If he had been a fair run at it and then failed that’s a different matter
So you are saying the 2015 Tory campaign was fraudulent?
No. Firstly Cameron chose to resign and I am not a supporter of indentured servitude.
Secondly he had failed in a key policy, of keeping the UK in the EU, so felt he didn’t have the ability to continue to lead the government effectively
This is the parallel I am thinking about:
Mr Livingstone found himself in the middle of controversy within 24 hours of Labour winning the GLC election on May 7, 1981, when he led a coup against the then Labour leader, Andrew Macintosh, now Lord Macintosh of Haringey.
My memory of that though, and it may be faulty, was that that was widely trailed as being what would likely happen after the election. You can't have a "coup" when it's no great surprise to anyone.
Then why did they present a false prospectus to the electorate?
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
Oh FFS
"This is quite bad. A group of virologists wanted to do gain-of-function research on COVID viruses in Wuhan in ways that closely matched the SARS-CoV-2 virus that's killed 8+ million, but tried to hide the Wuhan linkages and got a lot of help in doing so from science journalists."
Do I really need to spell this out? A group of scientists decided to do dodgy/illegal gain of function research on novel bat coronaviruses in the one lab in the world equipped to do this, in Wuhan - with loads of bats fron Yunnan - and they applied for research funding from the USA and when it was refused (as being too dangerous), they decided to go ahead anyway and do it - knowingly - in bio-insecure labs in Wuhan at BSL2 level and then 300 metres away from this dodgy lab a weirdly pathogenic novel bat coronavirus emerged in a market (which doesn't sell bats) AND YOU ARE STILL CLAIMING IT IS A FUCKING ACCIDENT
I mean, there is a point at which you need to stop commenting on this. I suggest that is now
Why are you so obsessed with people not being allowed to have different opinions to you? I work in a life sciences department. Do you even know what BSL2 entails, or any of the other stuff you post from twitter or Reddit?
It is not settled and definitive. No-one has proven that covid is an artificially mutated virus. Except in your head, perhaps.
And you don’t get to decide who posts about things on PB.
But your position is now idiotic, and maintained by a tiny minority on TwitterX, in the face of utterly monumental circumstantial evidence. Indeed your position is now maintained by about 3 virologists, I can basically name them. Everyone else has gone quiet, or slunk away in shame
The case is as good as closed. It came from the lab
Simply not true. You are only looking at twitter and social media, not the scientific literature.
The unfortunate fact of the matter, for many on here, is that it turns out I am right about nearly everything
Except what3words, so far
And Liz Truss surprising on the upside, eesh
I know that is hard to handle, but it is the case. Cope
My memory is vague but I reckon you predicted that thanks to chinese virus plague we would now be all chewing on the very last of the rats in order to stay alive.
And yet...
I wolfed down takeaway fish and chips washed down with some left over xmas special stout not two hours ago.
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
The committee in question, that is putting forward this lab leak position, is a Republican-controlled committee, chaired by Brad Wenstrup, a podiatrist, who contends that there was mass fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and has advanced other nutty conspiracy theories. I am unclear how nutty conspiracy theorist might believe in a COVID-19 nutty conspiracy theory is news.
Here you go. The actual evidence. Pretty final, I think
@USRightToKnow released documents showing virologists & Wuhan researchers attempted to mislead on a DARPA grant--they hid that they would do some dangerous virus research in Wuhan.
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
The committee in question, that is putting forward this lab leak position, is a Republican-controlled committee, chaired by Brad Wenstrup, a podiatrist, who contends that there was mass fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and has advanced other nutty conspiracy theories. I am unclear how nutty conspiracy theorist might believe in a COVID-19 nutty conspiracy theory is news.
The Lab-leak theory is plausible but unprovable and thus undisprovable, so Leon can keep banging on about whenever he feels the need for some more attention. Sadly.
Quite a lot of love for Rayner but I have a theory based on my evil prejudices and knowledge of equally horrible people.
It’s been pointed out many times on here about the ridiculous way the British - really the English - like their posh elite educated overlords. That there is a sort of class based cultural cringe of doffing the cap to a Cameron et Al because they went to public schools and top universities.
It’s an embarrassed aspirational thing where if you vote for your betters you are part of their thing.
So when it comes to Rayner I don’t think you can discount the opposite of above. There will be a massive amount of people who see how she dresses (sorry but she is the worst kind of grown up who hasn’t grown up and thinks it’s edgy to dress like a student) and hear her speak and be aghast that she is their “better”. The English don’t mind someone being above them if they can justify it because of their wealth/class/education but John Prescott was never going to be taken seriously and neither will Rayner.
There is also that thing about how the English can hate someone by virtue of their accent regardless of what they actually have to say and there aren’t enough swing seats where people won’t hate how she speaks.
It’s not nice what I’ve written but it’s how we are.
It's one of the ways we have gone backwards as a country. 100 years ago next month we had our first ever Labour government.
Ramsey MacDonald was the illegitimate son of a farm worker and a domestic servant. The new colonial secretary was a Welsh engine driver. The home secretary a Glaswegian iron moulder. There were several ex coal miners in cabinet.
It's hard to imagine such a cabinet now.
I don’t know, the current leader is the son of a toolmaker, and went to state school
He learned to play the flute with Fatboy Slim, you don’t get more down to earth and gritty than that; literally dragged up
Accept it came from the lab (with, say, 95-99% certitude). Show you can be wrong. Admit it
This is a fundamental assay of this site's worthiness as a forum
My view has always been that it seemed extremely coincidental to say the least that a lab investigating bat virus should be right next door to the wet market which is ground zero.
Pretty sure I posted comments along those lines over the the years of this.
Accept it came from the lab (with, say, 95-99% certitude). Show you can be wrong. Admit it
This is a fundamental assay of this site's worthiness as a forum
My view has always been that it seemed extremely coincidental to say the least that a lab investigating bat virus should be right next door to the wet market which is ground zero.
Pretty sure I posted comments along those lines over the the years of this.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I always cut off half the batter. Had F&C for the first time in ages last week and afterwards the greasiness of the batter I did eat took about three hours to leave my mouth, so I understand your point. I think some shops do it in breadcrumbs instead; I had that in a pub years ago and it was much nicer now I think of it
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t DH one of the smallest Whitehall departments?
Interestingly we have more doctors and nurses than ever before, but fewer managers. I’d be in favour of clinicians focusing on clinical work and managers doing the admin. It’s one of the attractions of private healthcare that the formfilling is done by someone else.
Steve Black gave an interesting talk at the Nuffield earlier this year on manager numbers.
S
PS - The number of trusts still using paper systems (10%?) is scary
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Even Skeptic Magazine (hitherto urgently anti-lab leak) has surrendered
"Updating our priors, looks like the evidence should lead us to tip our response criteria to the lab-leak hypothesis from "No" to "Yes" (probabilistically speaking in a Bayesian sense)."
Fish in Britain is seldom well cooked. The sea all round Britain yields a variety of excellent fishes, but as a rule they are unimaginatively boiled or fried, and the art of seasoning them in the cooking is not understood. The fish fried in oil to which the British working classes are especially addicted is definitely nasty, and has been an enemy of home cookery, since it can be bought everywhere in the big towns, ready cooked and at low prices.
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
Three positives. Three things which can be improved on. With practical suggestions. As the headline. For ALL. There has been a cult of the Super Head. It's a myth. It's not complicated.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I always cut off half the batter. Had F&C for the first time in ages last week and afterwards the greasiness of the batter I did eat took about three hours to leave my mouth, so I understand your point. I think some shops do it in breadcrumbs instead; I had that in a pub years ago and it was much nicer now I think of it
Breadcrumbs or tempura batter are much better, being lighter
British batter is absurdly chunky and claggy and probably designed to mask unfresh fish, or small amounts thereof
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
a) what a waste of time all this is compared to actually focusing on the next lesson in school.
Fish in Britain is seldom well cooked. The sea all round Britain yields a variety of excellent fishes, but as a rule they are unimaginatively boiled or fried, and the art of seasoning them in the cooking is not understood. The fish fried in oil to which the British working classes are especially addicted is definitely nasty, and has been an enemy of home cookery, since it can be bought everywhere in the big towns, ready cooked and at low prices.
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
The DfE persist in claiming they have no power over OFSTED.
Now I know they're lying. And so do you. And so does everyone else. OFSTED are no more independent of the DfE than the Donetsk People's Republic was of Moscow.
But the fact is, because of that falsehood this is a problem we couldn't look to the DfE to solve even if they had the mental capacity to do so (which they don't). We need politicians to act. And they won't.
Is the modern world how Alexandra Kollantai imagined because we have accepted a lot of communism’s ideas, or was it going to be like this anyway under capitalism?
Labours plans for childcare, announced today, reminded me of ‘The state is responsible for the upbringing of children’ section.
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
As it was once explained to me, a lot of an OFSTED judgement is written before visiting the school. They spend a long time going through the stats of the school and develop a full working hypothesis on what the school is like from that stats analysis. The visit itself is largely an attempt to confirm the working hypothesis they already have in hand.
Of course, many things are done with a working hypothesis to start with, but if true, the extent the conclusions are already in place before the visit doesn't sound great.
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
The DfE persist in claiming they have no power over OFSTED.
Now I know they're lying. And so do you. And so does everyone else. OFSTED are no more independent of the DfE than the Donetsk People's Republic was of Moscow.
But the fact is, because of that falsehood this is a problem we couldn't look to the DfE to solve even if they had the mental capacity to do so (which they don't). We need politicians to act. And they won't.
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
As it was once explained to me, a lot of an OFSTED judgement is written before visiting the school. They spend a long time going through the stats of the school and develop a full working hypothesis on what the school is like from that stats analysis. The visit itself is largely an attempt to confirm the working hypothesis they already have in hand.
Of course, many things are done with a working hypothesis to start with, but if true, the extent the conclusions are already in place before the visit doesn't sound great.
Can anyone confirm this?
Do they ever consider whether the children are happy or not?
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t DH one of the smallest Whitehall departments?
Interestingly we have more doctors and nurses than ever before, but fewer managers. I’d be in favour of clinicians focusing on clinical work and managers doing the admin. It’s one of the attractions of private healthcare that the formfilling is done by someone else.
Steve Black gave an interesting talk at the Nuffield earlier this year on manager numbers.
S
PS - The number of trusts still using paper systems (10%?) is scary
Last time I saw my practice nurse (about a year ago) she looked up an NHS webpage, then painfully, slowly, printed it out. Then looked at the print-out and copied it by hand onto a bit of paper URL by URL. Some of which were still correct by the time she's finished. One of them even had vaguely modern information on it though it still read like an advert for Weight Watchers from 1985.
She also write me a note with a link that turned out to be some sort of Indian mystic who promised to cure all ills. In return for a very modest donation.
Recently found out the medication she prescribed me is 'very hard' on the kidneys. Which the GP actually got annoyed with me for not knowing.
What a complete and utter farce Liz Truss getting a resignation honours list for "serving" 49 days!!!
There should be a minimum term of time served - say a year - before you get to dish out honours to your mates.
... But she stood up and said 'Growth!' a few times. Surely that means she should get to nominate some friends for the £300-a-day gig literally lording it over us for life?
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t DH one of the smallest Whitehall departments?
Interestingly we have more doctors and nurses than ever before, but fewer managers. I’d be in favour of clinicians focusing on clinical work and managers doing the admin. It’s one of the attractions of private healthcare that the formfilling is done by someone else.
Steve Black gave an interesting talk at the Nuffield earlier this year on manager numbers.
S
PS - The number of trusts still using paper systems (10%?) is scary
Last time I saw my practice nurse (about a year ago) she looked up an NHS webpage, then painfully, slowly, printed it out. Then looked at the print-out and copied it by hand onto a bit of paper URL by URL. Some of which were still correct by the time she's finished. One of them even had vaguely modern information on it though it still read like an advert for Weight Watchers from 1985.
She also write me a note with a link that turned out to be some sort of Indian mystic who promised to cure all ills. In return for a very modest donation.
Recently found out the medication she prescribed me is 'very hard' on the kidneys. Which the GP actually got annoyed with me for not knowing.
:: heart :: our NHS.
Spend no money on training or tech and what do you expect?
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
The committee in question, that is putting forward this lab leak position, is a Republican-controlled committee, chaired by Brad Wenstrup, a podiatrist, who contends that there was mass fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and has advanced other nutty conspiracy theories. I am unclear how nutty conspiracy theorist might believe in a COVID-19 nutty conspiracy theory is news.
Here you go. The actual evidence. Pretty final, I think
@USRightToKnow released documents showing virologists & Wuhan researchers attempted to mislead on a DARPA grant--they hid that they would do some dangerous virus research in Wuhan.
Any PB-er who maintained it wasn't a lab leak into the year 2022 should leave the site in abject shame
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
And you know that you are right, of course? Opinion is still divided in the real scientific community. Most (probably 100 %) novel pathogens that have afflicted humanity have had a natural origin, often caused by the proximity of animals and man (notably as man shifted to farming as a lifestyle).
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
The committee in question, that is putting forward this lab leak position, is a Republican-controlled committee, chaired by Brad Wenstrup, a podiatrist, who contends that there was mass fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and has advanced other nutty conspiracy theories. I am unclear how nutty conspiracy theorist might believe in a COVID-19 nutty conspiracy theory is news.
Here you go. The actual evidence. Pretty final, I think
@USRightToKnow released documents showing virologists & Wuhan researchers attempted to mislead on a DARPA grant--they hid that they would do some dangerous virus research in Wuhan.
All you have - all you will likely ever have - is circumstantial evidence
Personally I think it was an accidental leak from the lab covered up at various levels from a combination of fear and embarassment.
But we will never know for sure
Speaking of cover-ups, do we really believe the official Chinese death toll of 122,000 (out of a nation of 1.4 billion), compared to the UK death toll of 232,000 (out of a nation of 68 million)?
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
As it was once explained to me, a lot of an OFSTED judgement is written before visiting the school. They spend a long time going through the stats of the school and develop a full working hypothesis on what the school is like from that stats analysis. The visit itself is largely an attempt to confirm the working hypothesis they already have in hand.
Of course, many things are done with a working hypothesis to start with, but if true, the extent the conclusions are already in place before the visit doesn't sound great.
Can anyone confirm this?
Do they ever consider whether the children are happy or not?
Why would the children be of interest in judging the success or failure of state education?
Everyone else has gone quiet, or slunk away in shame
A lot of academic twitter is no longer there, or only use it for broadcast rather than for conversations. The signal-to-noise ratio crashed when they started algorithmically boosting the replies of the stupidest people on the internet.
There may or may not be a super-injunction regarding why Charlotte Owen was appointed to HoL. But why should that prevent people discussing her parentage. This is a matter of public record.
There may or may not be a super-injunction regarding why Charlotte Owen was appointed to HoL. But why should that prevent people discussing her parentage. This is a matter of public record.
That’s not the bit that is redacted! And it’s a matter of taste and decency for a family website…
Mr. Stodge, I wouldn't be surprised if we see both more people withdrawing as much as possible from the internet as well as increasing numbers decreasing or more strictly controlling their own access.
I've been a secondary headteacher for over 20 years. I've led schools through inspections 6 times. It's horrendous -- not just the hugely intense, career-defining 54 hours of a full Section 5 inspection, but the weeks and months waiting for "the call" beforehand.
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
Really interesting response and header. I think the whole situation with schools in England is a total mess. I took my son out of primary school at age 6 and enrolled him in the Finnish school system instead. The local school in England had about 7 million rules which all seemed to be linked to Ofsted and had security like a prison due to 'safeguarding'. The teachers were a combination of people from 'teach first' who were struggling and for one year there was no teacher at all, it was a different teacher every day. I did end up talking to the headteacher quite a bit towards the end and he said that there aren't any teachers to fill the posts because the obvious prerequisite to survive is that you have to absolutely love the job and there aren't enough people who do and can do the work and can then also put up with the low pay. Somehow the school keeps going and is 'good', and it was good in my view, but this was down to the superhuman efforts of a few people, and despite the dysfunctional structure it operated in.
There may or may not be a super-injunction regarding why Charlotte Owen was appointed to HoL. But why should that prevent people discussing her parentage. This is a matter of public record.
How would anyone know if there is a superinjunction? Is there a site somewhere? Does the Lord Chief phone round Ian Hislop, Piers Morgan and Popbitch?
I see that annoying man Matthew Elliott has been made a Lord. Hopefully he'll be one of those that never turns up.
Matthew Elliott's wikipedia page has not been updated. We should spare a thought for those dedicated volunteers who will shortly settle down to work through the honours lists. Maybe they too deserve a medal.
Comments
That's not an insignificant number and explains why we continue to have this paradox of letters for hospital appointments for example.
As others have said, it's mainly but not exclusively older people - I suspect we'll see younger families eschewing the Internet in time as the digital generation fears the onset of digital degeneration.
It's not so much trying to put Pandora back in her box (or router) but perhaps a rebalancing of life's requirements and priorities.
The "analogue" world isn't just about not having Internet, a smart phone or multiple email addresses. It's also about how organisations function and looking for example at business processes beyond a spreadsheet and exploring other possibilites.
The severe lack of decent food on the Lochaber to Edinburgh drive is always disappointing after an icy day on the hill. The contrast with the Lake District...
I assume "NHS" is being used as a catch-all to include care, frontline GP services, health education and the whole gamut of areas related to health (such as home improvements to accommodate OT equipment such as commodes, hoists and stair lifts to allow people with mobility and other issues to remain in their own homes as long as possible).
We hear a lot from some bemoaning obesity in children and calling for better health education but I'd have thought i older people (a not insignificant part of the population) also need health education on how to avoid strokes, heart problems and generally how to maintain core health past 60, 70 and even 80.
"In a closed-door session scheduled for January 8–9, the committee plans on asking Fauci about his involvement in covering up gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, where it is believed Covid-19 originated"
https://x.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1740766447029166394?s=20
That is quite a lot of you, TBH
But you KNOW that covid came from a lab because that’s th3 more dramatic and exciting theory…
You may be right, but it’s settled science.
"This is quite bad. A group of virologists wanted to do gain-of-function research on COVID viruses in Wuhan in ways that closely matched the SARS-CoV-2 virus that's killed 8+ million, but tried to hide the Wuhan linkages and got a lot of help in doing so from science journalists."
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1738588716749209653?s=20
Do I really need to spell this out? A group of scientists decided to do dodgy/illegal gain of function research on novel bat coronaviruses in the one lab in the world equipped to do this, in Wuhan - with loads of bats fron Yunnan - and they applied for research funding from the USA and when it was refused (as being too dangerous), they decided to go ahead anyway and do it - knowingly - in bio-insecure labs in Wuhan at BSL2 level and then 300 metres away from this dodgy lab a weirdly pathogenic novel bat coronavirus emerged in a market (which doesn't sell bats) AND YOU ARE STILL CLAIMING IT IS A FUCKING ACCIDENT
I mean, there is a point at which you need to stop commenting on this. I suggest that is now
https://www.torro.org.uk/research/event/2023-12-27
They assess it was a tornado at T5 on the 10 point tornado scale, graded as an Intense tornado, but below numerous grades of devastating tornadoes.
Looking at some of the published details of the tornado compared with what is typical of T5:
Wind speeds: 137-160mph. I saw report of 82mph measured but I don't know how close this was to the track or how official
Track length: 3-6 miles. From reports of damage, from Hough Hill, south east of Stalybridge town centre, to Carrbrook is about 2.5 miles. If, as stated, damage was reported over the town boundary into Mossley, that would take it above a 3 mile track.
Track width: 50-100m.
The track, once it has dropped off the Hough Hill, looks to have travelled fairly steadily NE-NNE along the east side of the River Tame. Supercell thunderstorms do almost always travel NE, and perhaps the alignment with the river valley allowed the tornado to travel such a distance.
It likely skirted the town centre quite closely, and evacuation to Dukinfield town hall, 2 miles further west, probably attests to that.
It may be fortunate that the width of the residential areas along the valley are themselves only typically a couple of hundred meters along that side of the valley, with abandoned industrial areas to the west along the eastern bank of the Tame (prior chemical contamination) and farmland further to the east, and the tornado did traverse agricultural land for some of its path.
It looks like the touch points with residential areas were along the main B6175 road in Millbrook (the older tall red brick terraces that lost full roofs are typically on the main road, a 1 mile section of the road was closed and I think I recognise the fallen wall from a churchyard along that section).
Further along it appears to have touched the bits of Carrbrook close to the moorland, this is the bit of valley that was evacuated 4-5 years back from moorland fires, as it is one of the few spots where there aren't at least a couple of farmer's fields to act as a firebreak.
I'll keep an eye out for the fuller report.
I find at this time of the year, running helps me to get my mind off work and makes the colder outside tolerable.
It is not settled and definitive. No-one has proven that covid is an artificially mutated virus. Except in your head, perhaps.
And you don’t get to decide who posts about things on PB.
Except what3words, so far
And Liz Truss surprising on the upside, eesh
I know that is hard to handle, but it is the case. Cope
Edit: I could add: Aliens, AI, and imminent nuclear war as other Leon misses.
The case is as good as closed. It came from the lab
My memory is vague but I reckon you predicted that thanks to chinese virus plague we would now be all chewing on the very last of the rats in order to stay alive.
And yet...
I wolfed down takeaway fish and chips washed down with some left over xmas special stout not two hours ago.
@USRightToKnow
released documents showing virologists & Wuhan researchers attempted to mislead on a DARPA grant--they hid that they would do some dangerous virus research in Wuhan.
Right where the pandemic started.
https://x.com/thackerpd/status/1738178859877437923?s=20
It's over. The argument is over
Accept it came from the lab (with, say, 95-99% certitude). Show you can be wrong. Admit it
This is a fundamental assay of this site's worthiness as a forum
I don’t know, the current leader is the son of a toolmaker, and went to state school
He learned to play the flute with Fatboy Slim, you don’t get more down to earth and gritty than that; literally dragged up
Pretty sure I posted comments along those lines over the the years of this.
PB is not one single hive mind.
PB: this is your chance. Go for it
I have no idea of the truth, but I cannot ‘accept’ something as settled that I donr think is.
I believe in free speech.
Interestingly we have more doctors and nurses than ever before, but fewer managers. I’d be in favour of clinicians focusing on clinical work and managers doing the admin. It’s one of the attractions of private healthcare that the formfilling is done by someone else.
Steve Black gave an interesting talk at the Nuffield earlier this year on manager numbers.
S
PS - The number of trusts still using paper systems (10%?) is scary
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nhs-isnt-overmanaged-stephen-black
Yes, Ofsted needs to go. Its tin-eared response to the Perry inquest is the final nail in the coffin, although admittedly the coffin already had much more metal in it than it had wood in the first place.
But the problem is bigger than Ofsted's inspection regime. I don't actually think Ofsted are in on the academisation agenda, tempting as it is to think they are. The culture -- the group-think of the organisation -- is that they are independent, that they inspect without fear or favour. Most of them try to. But they're so self-absorbed their leaders don't understand their inspectors' own implicit biases (we all have them!) and they don't see the wider picture -- that because of the high stakes attached to inspection, in which they are complicit, they do more harm than good.
The problem is with the huge apparatus that hangs on that one-word judgement. Heads that have led their schools to "outstanding" get the gongs, the CEO positions, the chance to share their experience, to bid for more cash, to train new teachers and leaders. Heads that are "double RI" get taken over by a MAT (that may or may not be compatible with their schools -- they get no say) and, likely, lose their jobs. It's not like there are others queueing to take their place.
The DfE should drop one-word grades and all the apparatus that goes with it.
Hallelujah, Labour will.
"Updating our priors, looks like the evidence should lead us to tip our response criteria to the lab-leak hypothesis from "No" to "Yes" (probabilistically speaking in a Bayesian sense)."
https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1738344845050277904?s=20
Fish in Britain is seldom well cooked. The sea all round Britain yields a variety of excellent fishes, but as a rule they are unimaginatively boiled or fried, and the art of seasoning them in the cooking is not understood. The fish fried in oil to which the British working classes are especially addicted is definitely nasty, and has been an enemy of home cookery, since it can be bought everywhere in the big towns, ready cooked and at low prices.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/british-cookery/
Three things which can be improved on. With practical suggestions. As the headline. For ALL. There has been a cult of the Super Head. It's a myth.
It's not complicated.
British batter is absurdly chunky and claggy and probably designed to mask unfresh fish, or small amounts thereof
b) Bring back Tim Brighouse RIP.
Now I know they're lying. And so do you. And so does everyone else. OFSTED are no more independent of the DfE than the Donetsk People's Republic was of Moscow.
But the fact is, because of that falsehood this is a problem we couldn't look to the DfE to solve even if they had the mental capacity to do so (which they don't). We need politicians to act. And they won't.
And I am afraid there is ample evidence that OFSTED are deliberately failing schools to enforce academisation - not least, the testimony of disgruntled inspectors (for example, see here: https://conservativehome.com/2023/12/11/john-bald-ofsted-has-lost-all-credibility-with-the-profession-it-is-difficult-to-see-a-way-forward/ ).
Labours plans for childcare, announced today, reminded me of ‘The state is responsible for the upbringing of children’ section.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm
Of course, many things are done with a working hypothesis to start with, but if true, the extent the conclusions are already in place before the visit doesn't sound great.
Can anyone confirm this?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/29/backlog-in-nhs-and-courts-will-take-10-years-to-clear-says-thinktank
There should be a minimum term of time served - say a year - before you get to dish out honours to your mates.
That's a Tory talking some sense.
Balanced, knowledgeable, nuanced and empathetic.
He won't last long.
I'm not asking for an admission of 100% wrongness, just a confession that the preponderance of evidence is heavily - very heavily - against you
That would make you a better person. In my eyes. Not that this should matter. But you claim to be a scientist
She also write me a note with a link that turned out to be some sort of Indian mystic who promised to cure all ills. In return for a very modest donation.
Recently found out the medication she prescribed me is 'very hard' on the kidneys. Which the GP actually got annoyed with me for not knowing.
:: heart :: our NHS.
I mean - this is modern Britain after all.
Personally I think it was an accidental leak from the lab covered up at various levels from a combination of fear and embarassment.
But we will never know for sure
Honestly I've given up bothering to follow him down his rabbit hole.
If the debate is ever settled, no doubt someone will publish something a little more convincing.
As to why, that is redacted. There are two theories in circulation. One is unsurprising to a cynic. One is a bit eeewh. Combined, well, 🤮
I'm sure most of us have heard stories, but I would prefer it if they weren't aired on the site.
PLUS it's clear that the hairdresser who Boris Johnson a gong, is highly skilled with a weed wacker.
Anyone sensing a pattern?
Mr. Stodge, I wouldn't be surprised if we see both more people withdrawing as much as possible from the internet as well as increasing numbers decreasing or more strictly controlling their own access.