I worry about humanity – politicalbetting.com

System

I worry about humanity – politicalbetting.com

Would you rather be stuck in the woods with a man or a bear?53% of women aged 18-29 choose the bear (as do 31% of all women)https://t.co/8x00JrSkCG pic.twitter.com/9O0yH5mLNt

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Soz, I do not have the energy to write any proper threads this afternoon.

boulay

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

MaxPB

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

turbotubbs

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

MaxPB

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

And the Americans who were shitting themselves about the fact that it came from a US funded company/lab. The feigning of ignorance in the US who didn't immediately call bullshit on this new "flu" near one of their funded labs was obvious from the start. Those people like Fauci were more worried about their fingerprints being on a potentially devastating lab leak of a virus that had the potential to kill millions of people so they just ignored it, covered it up and then called anyone who questioned the official narrative racist. Yet if they had called bullshit on the Chinese "flu" that happened conveniently next to their bat virus lab in November and locked down all flights immediately and told China to get a handle on it then we may have avoided the worst.

It was politicians like Fauci scared of their own involvement that caused the pandemic and there does need to be a reckoning for everyone involved.

twistedfirestopper3

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

What about the corruption of science by the transnational corporations that supply industrially manufactured edible products, and are protected by governments worldwide? Those feckers have killed and are killing millions in their ultra processed "food" experiment that they've been running for the past 50 years!

DecrepiterJohnL

TwiX seems to be down, at least via the web.

Sandpit

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

Omnium

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

The UK probably did more to contaminate the world than the Chinese. All politicians, the world over, need to consider quite why air travel continued as it did.

MaxPB

twistedfirestopper3 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

What about the corruption of science by the transnational corporations that supply industrially manufactured edible products, and are protected by governments worldwide? Those feckers have killed and are killing millions in their ultra processed "food" experiment that they've been running for the past 50 years!

I'd have a reckoning for them too. I spoke to a headhunter last week who was sounding me out on a very senior role at an unnamed company that was paying above market rate, eventually he got to the company and it was BAT, noped out immediately and told him "thanks, but no thanks."

boulay

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

Wasn’t the thing really about predictability- a woman knows a bear is dangerous so can keep a distance and behave a certain way but men are not predictable even when you know them.

MattW

Nice to see a lighthearted thread.

Presumably those who choose the bear get eaten, win a Darwin Award, and improve the Average Quality (IQ, if you like) of humanity by removing themselves from the calculation.

A sort of self-imposed Voluntary Opt-in Eugenics.

Jim_Miller

TSE - You may want to read the WaPo editorial which lamented the political gap between American women and men. As I recall, it was about a month ago.

(I think the increasing failure of young American women and men to form what a biologist would call "pair bonds" is our most serious national problem. As an American man, I can say that most of the fault is on the men's side. But not all.)

Selebian

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

The question is a bit ambiguous - "a man you don't know or a bear?" I mean, it depends on the bear, right? If I know the bear and he/she is a good chap, went to the right bear school and bear uni etc... practically one of us... then it has to be the bear, right? The man could be a right oik. Obviously if you don't know the bear's credentials then the situation is different again.

sarissa

Cocaine Bear? - No thanks.

Selebian

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

The question is a bit ambiguous - "a man you don't know or a bear?" I mean, it depends on the bear, right? If I know the bear and he/she is a good chap, went to the right bear school and bear uni etc... practically one of us... then it has to be the bear, right? The man could be a right oik. Obviously if you don't know the bear's credentials then the situation is different again.

From a woman's point of view, the optimum could be a man slower than you and a bear, as long as you get rescued before the bear gets hungry again

Malmesbury

In the US, the vast majority of bears are pretty much harmless.

Grizzly bears - the ones that will eat you - are fairly rare, anywhere near people,

boulay

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

The question is a bit ambiguous - "a man you don't know or a bear?" I mean, it depends on the bear, right? If I know the bear and he/she is a good chap, went to the right bear school and bear uni etc... practically one of us... then it has to be the bear, right? The man could be a right oik. Obviously if you don't know the bear's credentials then the situation is different again.

Posh Bears are of course better, especially ones called Rupert.

Selebian

boulay said:

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

The question is a bit ambiguous - "a man you don't know or a bear?" I mean, it depends on the bear, right? If I know the bear and he/she is a good chap, went to the right bear school and bear uni etc... practically one of us... then it has to be the bear, right? The man could be a right oik. Obviously if you don't know the bear's credentials then the situation is different again.

Posh Bears are of course better, especially ones called Rupert.

Paddington would be fine, too, despite his questionable immigration status. Would probably have marmalade sandwiches to spare.

Sandpit

boulay said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

Wasn’t the thing really about predictability- a woman knows a bear is dangerous so can keep a distance and behave a certain way but men are not predictable even when you know them.

Well there’s almost no men who will see you as lunch, and almost no bears who won’t!

A small brown bear you might be able to distract for a while, but a grizzly or polar bear is almost always hungry.

boulay

There’s some bear literally shitting itself in the woods in anticipation of Heathener sidling up to him with her thermos to tell tales of her Tory friends by the campfire.

boulay

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

Wasn’t the thing really about predictability- a woman knows a bear is dangerous so can keep a distance and behave a certain way but men are not predictable even when you know them.

Well there’s almost no men who will see you as lunch, and almost no bears who won’t!

A small brown bear you might be able to distract for a while, but a grizzly or polar bear is almost always hungry.

With all the carnivorous bears in the world it would be just Twiggy’s luck to end up with a Panda.

Malmesbury

Selebian said:

boulay said:

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

The question is a bit ambiguous - "a man you don't know or a bear?" I mean, it depends on the bear, right? If I know the bear and he/she is a good chap, went to the right bear school and bear uni etc... practically one of us... then it has to be the bear, right? The man could be a right oik. Obviously if you don't know the bear's credentials then the situation is different again.

Posh Bears are of course better, especially ones called Rupert.

Paddington would be fine, too, despite his questionable immigration status. Would probably have marmalade sandwiches to spare.

Is Paddington posh? He has had a private tea with the Queen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfiCa244XE&t=5s

ydoethur

What if the Bear is Bear Grylls?

MattW

Reflecting, are we sure these aren't just Furries thinking about Paddington Bear?

OldKingCole

MattW said:

Nice to see a lighthearted thread.

Presumably those who choose the bear get eaten, win a Darwin Award, and improve the Average Quality (IQ, if you like) of humanity by removing themselves from the calculation.

A sort of self-imposed Voluntary Opt-in Eugenics.

How many humans die as a result of bear attacks annually? I’m too lazy to Google it!

boulay

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

Nice to see a lighthearted thread.

Presumably those who choose the bear get eaten, win a Darwin Award, and improve the Average Quality (IQ, if you like) of humanity by removing themselves from the calculation.

A sort of self-imposed Voluntary Opt-in Eugenics.

How many humans die as a result of bear attacks annually? I’m too lazy to Google it!

None, it’s just men dressed up as bears to get close to women.

ydoethur

MattW said:

Reflecting, are we sure these aren't just Furries thinking about Paddington Bear?

Sinning above their station?

ydoethur

boulay said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

Nice to see a lighthearted thread.

Presumably those who choose the bear get eaten, win a Darwin Award, and improve the Average Quality (IQ, if you like) of humanity by removing themselves from the calculation.

A sort of self-imposed Voluntary Opt-in Eugenics.

How many humans die as a result of bear attacks annually? I’m too lazy to Google it!

None, it’s just men dressed up as bears to get close to women.

It's not what you know, it's 'who bruno?'

SeaShantyIrish2

boulay said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

Wasn’t the thing really about predictability- a woman knows a bear is dangerous so can keep a distance and behave a certain way but men are not predictable even when you know them.

Suspect it's EVEN more about ignorance of bears, as opposed to knowledge of men.

For example, how many of those surveyed realize that bears a) can outrun humans; and b) can climb trees (or alternatively topple smaller trees)?

Leon

MaxPB said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

And the Americans who were shitting themselves about the fact that it came from a US funded company/lab. The feigning of ignorance in the US who didn't immediately call bullshit on this new "flu" near one of their funded labs was obvious from the start. Those people like Fauci were more worried about their fingerprints being on a potentially devastating lab leak of a virus that had the potential to kill millions of people so they just ignored it, covered it up and then called anyone who questioned the official narrative racist. Yet if they had called bullshit on the Chinese "flu" that happened conveniently next to their bat virus lab in November and locked down all flights immediately and told China to get a handle on it then we may have avoided the worst.

It was politicians like Fauci scared of their own involvement that caused the pandemic and there does need to be a reckoning for everyone involved.

Fauci is heavily implicated. We need trials and jail sentences - the idea we can just say Oh well shit happens - imagine doing that if 20,000 died probably because of some terrible corporate negligence. We would DEMAND trials

Well, this isn’t 20,000 corpses - it’s 20,000,000 - plus a global cost of $25 TRILLION

And all those kids lives’ damaged and blunted and grrrrrr

And as you say even if at this late stage someone finds it came from the wet market (now vanishingly unlikely) there is no question that dodgy and illegal virology was done and there is no question that certain figures tried to cover that up and stop us talking about it - in ways that certainly made the virus worse

It’s a crime on a scale with a war crime. Surely?

Sandpit

MattW said:

Reflecting, are we sure these aren't just Furries thinking about Paddington Bear?

There was an outdoorsman type who was a guest on Rogan’s podcast a few weeks ago, and they were lamenting the treatment of bears in the media, starting back with ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt, to be some lovely fluffy cuddly thing, rather than the apex predator in large areas of American woodland areas which is actually the case.

Alphabet_Soup

ydoethur said:

What if the Bear is Bear Grylls?

Sounds delicious. Is there a vegan option?

Selebian

Malmesbury said:

Selebian said:

boulay said:

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

The question is a bit ambiguous - "a man you don't know or a bear?" I mean, it depends on the bear, right? If I know the bear and he/she is a good chap, went to the right bear school and bear uni etc... practically one of us... then it has to be the bear, right? The man could be a right oik. Obviously if you don't know the bear's credentials then the situation is different again.

Posh Bears are of course better, especially ones called Rupert.

Paddington would be fine, too, despite his questionable immigration status. Would probably have marmalade sandwiches to spare.

Is Paddington posh? He has had a private tea with the Queen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfiCa244XE&t=5s

Well maybe. But we should seriously consider that it was meeting Paddington, rather than Liz Truss, that hastened the late Queen's demise

SeaShantyIrish2

Malmesbury said:

In the US, the vast majority of bears are pretty much harmless.

Grizzly bears - the ones that will eat you - are fairly rare, anywhere near people,

"In the US, the vast majority of bears are pretty much harmless."

NOT however IF they perceive a danger to themselves, or especially to their cub(s).

ydoethur

Meanwhile, in important news:

New ball. Triple Nelson.

Shit about to happen at Grace Road.

Although, to be fair, at 333/1...

boulay

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

boulay said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

Wasn’t the thing really about predictability- a woman knows a bear is dangerous so can keep a distance and behave a certain way but men are not predictable even when you know them.

Suspect it's EVEN more about ignorance of bears, as opposed to knowledge of men.

For example, how many of those surveyed realize that bears a) can outrun humans; and b) can climb trees (or alternatively topple smaller trees)?

Women know they can just say to the bear “no, everything is fine” and the bear will be terrified and spend weeks trying to work out what it did giving the woman time to make a swift escape.

ydoethur

Selebian said:

Malmesbury said:

Selebian said:

boulay said:

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

The question is a bit ambiguous - "a man you don't know or a bear?" I mean, it depends on the bear, right? If I know the bear and he/she is a good chap, went to the right bear school and bear uni etc... practically one of us... then it has to be the bear, right? The man could be a right oik. Obviously if you don't know the bear's credentials then the situation is different again.

Posh Bears are of course better, especially ones called Rupert.

Paddington would be fine, too, despite his questionable immigration status. Would probably have marmalade sandwiches to spare.

Is Paddington posh? He has had a private tea with the Queen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfiCa244XE&t=5s

Well maybe. But we should seriously consider that it was meeting Paddington, rather than Liz Truss, that hastened the late Queen's demise

He infected her.

Heck, he even admitted it.

He said 'I took ma maladie into the palace in a sandwich.'

MattW

Sandpit said:

MattW said:

Reflecting, are we sure these aren't just Furries thinking about Paddington Bear?

There was an outdoorsman type who was a guest on Rogan’s podcast a few weeks ago, and they were lamenting the treatment of bears in the media, starting back with ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt, to be some lovely fluffy cuddly thing, rather than the apex predator in large areas of American woodland areas which is actually the case.

Teddy Roosevelt was notorious.

He imposed a veritable holocaust on the animal population.

LostPassword

Omnium said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

The UK probably did more to contaminate the world than the Chinese. All politicians, the world over, need to consider quite why air travel continued as it did.

The UK? Not even the first place to be hit hard by Covid in Europe?

I'd have plenty to criticise about the UK response to the pandemic but, "more responsible for global spread than the Chinese," isn't on my radar.

What a bizarre opinion.

Jim_Miller

Malmesbury: Polar bears are found in Alaska.

The Biden administration is planning on introducing grizzly bears to the North Cascades here in Washington state. That's not because most people in that thinly-populated area particularly want those bears.

This little summary is good advice for those going into bear country:
If it's black, fight back.
It it's brown, lay down.
It it's white, say good night.

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

What if the Bear is Bear Grylls?

You’d have to repent of your sins. And be prepared for a total immersion baptism.

boulay

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

MattW said:

Reflecting, are we sure these aren't just Furries thinking about Paddington Bear?

There was an outdoorsman type who was a guest on Rogan’s podcast a few weeks ago, and they were lamenting the treatment of bears in the media, starting back with ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt, to be some lovely fluffy cuddly thing, rather than the apex predator in large areas of American woodland areas which is actually the case.

Teddy Roosevelt was notorious.

He imposed a veritable holocaust on the animal population.

There’s a great documentary by Ken Burns about the near wipeout of the Buffalo/Bison in the US. It’s actually very tragic and moving. It was on iPlayer a couple of months ago so I guess still there.

Omnium

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

The UK probably did more to contaminate the world than the Chinese. All politicians, the world over, need to consider quite why air travel continued as it did.

The UK? Not even the first place to be hit hard by Covid in Europe?

I'd have plenty to criticise about the UK response to the pandemic but, "more responsible for global spread than the Chinese," isn't on my radar.

What a bizarre opinion.

Bizarre or not, the airports in the UK are perhaps the most intense possible sources on the planet.

MattW

Perhaps we need to dress up like gorillas with good conversation:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6bbb2l

(with Bonus Pamela Stephenson)

TimS

That survey response is just people making a "point" that men are wronguns. They are not really considering the relative merits of the actual bear/man trade off. Still, there's a betting angle here because it's encouraging news for Biden.

Someone in the UK - perhaps JK Rowling or Rishi Sunak - should try a Brit version "would you rather be stuck in the woods with a transwoman or a bear".

kyf_100

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

boulay said:

It’s a really weird phenomenon this Bear/man thing. Had to google it the other week as I didn’t know what this sudden meme was.

It started in the US a few weeks ago, all rather weird, and clearly answered by many people who have never seen a bear in the wild.

The question is a bit ambiguous - "a man you don't know or a bear?" I mean, it depends on the bear, right? If I know the bear and he/she is a good chap, went to the right bear school and bear uni etc... practically one of us... then it has to be the bear, right? The man could be a right oik. Obviously if you don't know the bear's credentials then the situation is different again.

That's easy. Since the bear's in the woods, just ask him if he's on his way to the toilet or the loo.

Omnium

MattW said:

Perhaps we need to dress up like gorillas with good conversation:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6bbb2l

(with Bonus Pamela Stephenson)

With Bonus Pamela Stephenson I'm prepared to grow a beard, speak in a daft Scottish way, and generally look like I've spouted from a turnip patch. Ah.. he beat me to it!

Malmesbury

TimS said:

That survey response is just people making a "point" that men are wronguns. They are not really considering the relative merits of the actual bear/man trade off. Still, there's a betting angle here because it's encouraging news for Biden.

Someone in the UK - perhaps JK Rowling or Rishi Sunak - should try a Brit version "would you rather be stuck in the woods with a transwoman or a bear".

The only bear native to UK woods is Pooh Bear - always friendly and only eats honey.

LostPassword

Omnium said:

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

The UK probably did more to contaminate the world than the Chinese. All politicians, the world over, need to consider quite why air travel continued as it did.

The UK? Not even the first place to be hit hard by Covid in Europe?

I'd have plenty to criticise about the UK response to the pandemic but, "more responsible for global spread than the Chinese," isn't on my radar.

What a bizarre opinion.

Bizarre or not, the airports in the UK are perhaps the most intense possible sources on the planet.

Heathrow's a fairly busy international airport, but it's traffic dipped more than many during 2020. I really am not seeing it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic

Sandpit

MattW said:

Perhaps we need to dress up like gorillas with good conversation:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6bbb2l

(with Bonus Pamela Stephenson)

Pamela Stephenson, always a nice bonus.

(Could you imagine how racist NTNOCN would be described as today, coming up with stretches like that?).

dixiedean

Most bears aren't interested in attacking humans unless provoked or they think their cubs are in danger.
If you're carrying food, and hopefully you are in the woods, simply dropping it for them to eat while you escape will work. They are omnivores. And aren't interested in expending more energy than is necessary to fuel.
Polar bears are dangerous because of the lack of easy food. Even grizzlies won't attack you unless they have just woken up after hibernation.

SeaShantyIrish2

MattW said:

Sandpit said:

MattW said:

Reflecting, are we sure these aren't just Furries thinking about Paddington Bear?

There was an outdoorsman type who was a guest on Rogan’s podcast a few weeks ago, and they were lamenting the treatment of bears in the media, starting back with ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt, to be some lovely fluffy cuddly thing, rather than the apex predator in large areas of American woodland areas which is actually the case.

Teddy Roosevelt was notorious.

He imposed a veritable holocaust on the animal population.

And was also, arguably, America's #1 president for conservation and ecological awareness.

For LOTS more on this subject, check out

"The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America 1858 - 1919" by Douglas Brinkley (2009)
https://douglasbrinkley.com/books/the-wilderness-warrior/

TheScreamingEagles

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Scott_xP

@TomWitherow

New: Post Office's top lawyer has refused to give evidence to the public inquiry and can not be compelled as she lives abroad.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC: “We're not going to hear from her, she lives abroad and won't cooperate”.

MoonRabbit

MaxPB said:

Richardr said:

MaxPB said:

MoonRabbit said:

MaxPB said:

"The election is going to be the third or fourth Thursday in November, the autumn fiscal event will be in the first or second week of October for a five week campaign. Expect another 2p off NI and maybe a surprise elsewhere as well as a manifesto commitment to abolish employee NI entirely over the next parliament."

Me, from yesterday evening.

Today Hunt is hinting at another 2p cut in NI in the autumn. This is going to be the election strategy. I have no doubt about it.

Me. From yesterday evening. “You’re talking Rubbish Max.”

Another 2p off NI ain’t a rabbit from a hat. It wasn’t at the last two.

I think another fiscal event is difficult.

For one thing expectations will be very high for a rabbit from the hat. Where are you saying the money is coming from for the somewhat less than a rabbit from the hat 2p off NI in your post? The two previous cuts have come not from growth nor reduced borrowing, but from fictitious headroom found 5 years down the line, that if that headroom proves a fiction in growth and borrowing movements needed, will actually require tax or NI rises to avoid swingeing cuts to government budgets, Home Office in particular.

Defence increase Sunak boasts is at least £70B and Labour won’t match the pledge - wasn’t in last budget maybe because it had to pass through an OBR. Do you think there can be another fiscal event without that defence promise getting through an OBR? If it’s not put through the OBR, it’s not a serious pledge. Ditto any pledge to eliminate NI, not put through OBR then worthless pledge as not backed up by the money.

Both another fiscal event and another conference promises more risks than rewards to the Sunak’s government.

And yet it's the Chancellor hinting at another fiscal event in the autumn and another NI cut. You may think it's difficult but the the calculation has been made that they are going to lose and they want cutting working people's tax as the legacy of the Tory government. Halving NI is something they can point to and when Labour try and raise it in government the Tories can accuse them of hurting working age people.

I can already see the election after this one is going to be a battle of working people vs non working people and the Tories are trying to make sure they have a legacy of helping working people before they get kicked out. That's the strategy, the Tories are putting together a winning coalition for 2029, not 2024 which is already lost. Having something very concrete to campaign on like halving the NI rate vs Labour pushing it up and having a 4 week campaign where the myth that NI funds pensions or the NHS can be broken helps the Tories in 2029.

There is clearly an acceptance that 2024 is lost and at best a damage limitation exercise. Any probable actions should be interpreted as moving the party in the direction of putting together a winning coalition for 2029 because the next 5 years are going to be absolute shit for Labour. They've got £40-50bn in welfare cuts to make or £40-50bn in tax raises. Labour will never cut welfare so the Tories are banking on Labour reversing the NI cuts.

Would Hunt and Sunak really be looking that far ahead? The record of this government so far doesn't suggest to me any long term plan, let alone one that they will almost certainly have left the top of the party before it is tested.

I think the men in grey suits that run the party are very much looking that far forwards and position for 2029 rather than 2024 which everyone accepts is lost.

This government already has the reputation for putting up taxes, they cannot be known for anything else going into the next election day, for even with a further NI cut, it’s still a higher tax burden than they inherited.

It is only a few years ago Rishi Sunak invented a whole new National Insurance to sort out the problem of social care once and for all. Has that problem with social care gone away with the money he took and still taking? Even with another pre election cut to something, he has still only given back part of what he’s already taken.

Another fiscal event is more a case of salting the earth, Gordon Brown style - who put up tax on wealth creation in 2010 just as Tories cut NI in last thing they do in 2024, knowing they are paying for these NI tax cuts from fictitious money that won’t exist in 2028-29 that means either terrible cuts in departmental spending or tax rises, probably both.

Can they get that £70B of defence spending increase through an OBR and still have anything for a rabbit from the hat?

Nope.

Another fiscal event will be so nakedly borrowing from a fantasy future red book it will hurt their campaign, not help it.

boulay

dixiedean said:

Most bears aren't interested in attacking humans unless provoked or they think their cubs are in danger.
If you're carrying food, and hopefully you are in the woods, simply dropping it for them to eat while you escape will work. They are omnivores. And aren't interested in expending more energy than is necessary to fuel.
Polar bears are dangerous because of the lack of easy food. Even grizzlies won't attack you unless they have just woken up after hibernation.

Like the one who attacked Leonardo di Caprio a few years back. I guess the bear was worried its cubs were young enough to be Leo’s next girlfriend and decide to ward him off.

eek

MaxPB said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

What about the corruption of science by the transnational corporations that supply industrially manufactured edible products, and are protected by governments worldwide? Those feckers have killed and are killing millions in their ultra processed "food" experiment that they've been running for the past 50 years!

I'd have a reckoning for them too. I spoke to a headhunter last week who was sounding me out on a very senior role at an unnamed company that was paying above market rate, eventually he got to the company and it was BAT, noped out immediately and told him "thanks, but no thanks."

At least in modern days their offices no longer stink of cigarette smoke. Going back 30 years I went there for a meeting - I think I binned the suit in the end as the smell never quite left it

Omnium

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

The UK probably did more to contaminate the world than the Chinese. All politicians, the world over, need to consider quite why air travel continued as it did.

The UK? Not even the first place to be hit hard by Covid in Europe?

I'd have plenty to criticise about the UK response to the pandemic but, "more responsible for global spread than the Chinese," isn't on my radar.

What a bizarre opinion.

Bizarre or not, the airports in the UK are perhaps the most intense possible sources on the planet.

Heathrow's a fairly busy international airport, but it's traffic dipped more than many during 2020. I really am not seeing it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic

Istanbul seems to have the most destinations.

SeaShantyIrish2

Q: Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a bear OR with Boris Johnson?

A: Depends on which is hungrier - Yogi OR BoJo?

Note that you can (perhaps) amuse yourself for hours (if not days!) by simply substituting for Boris Johnson, the names of Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Valdimir Putin, Nadine Dorries, Nigel Farange, George Galloway, Jeremy Corbin, etc., etc., etc.

dixiedean

If anyone doesn't believe the wisdom of being safer with a bear here are some facts.

https://illustratedteacup.com/how-many-bear-related-deaths-and-attacks-per-year/#:~:text=Offensive bear attacks are very,being attacked by a bear.
TLDR. 40 bear attacks on humans worldwide in an average year.
Cf. Human on human action.

OldKingCole

Scott_xP said:

@TomWitherow

New: Post Office's top lawyer has refused to give evidence to the public inquiry and can not be compelled as she lives abroad.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC: “We're not going to hear from her, she lives abroad and won't cooperate”.

Well, there’s only one conclusion to be drawn, isn’t there? Can this person be arrested if they set foot on British territory in the future?

Leon

How many PBers have seen a bear in the wild?

I have. Driving through Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. Superb. A momma black bear just crossing the road as I drove

It is one of my remaining wildlife ambitions to see a polar bear in the wild. Imagine!

SeaShantyIrish2

One way (or is it another?) that even mild-mannered bears can be dangerous, is IF they are startled.

Same with most critters, including homo saps.

Just the other day, while strolling in the early morning mirk toward my morning coffee, heard the flapping of wings as I was passing under a tree. Then a big crow more-or-less fell out of said tree.

Gave me a quick look, and we went our separate ways; the crow didn't even squawk.

Reckon that I'd startled it, perhaps sleeping in its roost, and its immediate reaction was to check out the potential threat. Just a quick glance told that crow that I was harmless . . . at least for the crows.

Cookie

dixiedean said:

If anyone doesn't believe the wisdom of being safer with a bear here are some facts.

https://illustratedteacup.com/how-many-bear-related-deaths-and-attacks-per-year/#:~:text=Offensive bear attacks are very,being attacked by a bear.
TLDR. 40 bear attacks on humans worldwide in an average year.
Cf. Human on human action.

Yes, but surely that's because humans and bears very rarely occupy tge same space. If you compare bear on human attacks as a proportion of human/bear interactions against human on human attacks as a proportion of all human interactions it probably looks less favourable.

DougSeal

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Anyone who puts the label “people” or “people’s” in front of their outfit is not to be trusted, from Mao onwards.

Omnium

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Q: Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a bear OR with Boris Johnson?

A: Depends on which is hungrier - Yogi OR BoJo?

Note that you can (perhaps) amuse yourself for hours (if not days!) by simply substituting for Boris Johnson, the names of Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Valdimir Putin, Nadine Dorries, Nigel Farange, George Galloway, Jeremy Corbin, etc., etc., etc.

I think Homer Simpson summarised this best when he asked about what kind of beer. I think it's clear that beer>bear, and beer>bojo, but one should be careful in life not to get stuck with pints of Bass - we'd have to go with the bear I think if that's all that was available.

SeaShantyIrish2

Omnium said:

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

The UK probably did more to contaminate the world than the Chinese. All politicians, the world over, need to consider quite why air travel continued as it did.

The UK? Not even the first place to be hit hard by Covid in Europe?

I'd have plenty to criticise about the UK response to the pandemic but, "more responsible for global spread than the Chinese," isn't on my radar.

What a bizarre opinion.

Bizarre or not, the airports in the UK are perhaps the most intense possible sources on the planet.

Heathrow's a fairly busy international airport, but it's traffic dipped more than many during 2020. I really am not seeing it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic

Istanbul seems to have the most destinations.

All those Turkish barbers heading home to give their proceeds to Mrs. Barber?

dixiedean

Leon said:

How many PBers have seen a bear in the wild?

I have. Driving through Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. Superb. A momma black bear just crossing the road as I drove

It is one of my remaining wildlife ambitions to see a polar bear in the wild. Imagine!

Saw a grizzly in British Columbia.
Was a long, long way away on the other side of a deep valley.

DougSeal

OldKingCole said:

Scott_xP said:

@TomWitherow

New: Post Office's top lawyer has refused to give evidence to the public inquiry and can not be compelled as she lives abroad.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC: “We're not going to hear from her, she lives abroad and won't cooperate”.

Well, there’s only one conclusion to be drawn, isn’t there? Can this person be arrested if they set foot on British territory in the future?

If there were a court order they were in contempt of, possibly, but I don’t think that’s the case here

boulay

OldKingCole said:

Scott_xP said:

@TomWitherow

New: Post Office's top lawyer has refused to give evidence to the public inquiry and can not be compelled as she lives abroad.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC: “We're not going to hear from her, she lives abroad and won't cooperate”.

Well, there’s only one conclusion to be drawn, isn’t there? Can this person be arrested if they set foot on British territory in the future?

I guess Cyclefree would be the one who would know if the inquiry has a standing like court where if they summon her (the PO Lawyer not CF) and she doesn’t attend then they can issue a warrant in which case she would be arrested if she arrived in the UK.

Failing that they could go full Shanina Begum and take away her citizenship.

Omnium

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Omnium said:

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

SandyRentool said:

Andy_JS said:

Almost no wind power being generated today.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And solar will be looking pretty grim by midnight.

Why the sarcastic reply?

Coz I think solar is a waste of time in the UK.

I was not intending anything against you, so apologies if it came across that way.

5% of our total generation last year, so it's some way from irrelevant.

It must have the worst return on energy generated per billion spent.

Remember when you and I were virtually the only people on PB willing to say “er, it quite likely came from the lab? The bat virus lab just down the road from the bat virus outbreak?”

Now read this:

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer. Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization. EcoHealth facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight, willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health grant, and apparently made false statements to the NIH. These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide"
- Chairman Wenstrup, Committee on Oversight and Accountability - COVID-19.

https://x.com/rwmalonemd/status/1790848520921981004?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Indeed. Yet there's still some die hards even on here who want to cling to the idea that they weren't being lied to by the "good" side and the "bad" team were right about it all.

We had a uni mates reunion a couple of weekends ago that I was graciously allowed to attend for a few hours by my wife juggling a relative newborn and a toddler. The subject came up (unsurprising given that we all studied chemistry, biochemistry and/or medicine) and the consensus around the room was unanimous that it was a lab leak and that it was likely covered up by the Americans because senior people in their health regulatory infrastructure were implicated. They all work in research and know how easy it is for political pressure to change decisions by journals.

Quite so, quite so. And for a long time it was just you and me willing to say this on PB. And sometimes @Gardenwalker as well

Pitiful

Anyway we now need a reckoning. Science itself needs to be severely scrutinised - from the labs to the journals

Yes agreed, the corruption of science by political operators in healthcare regulation was awful and there does now need to be some measures put in place to insulate science from politicians who were more worried about their dirty dealings with WIV than stopping the virus from spreading.

By which you mean the Chinese, right? Who maintained air travel in and out to ensure spread to the rest of the world?

The UK probably did more to contaminate the world than the Chinese. All politicians, the world over, need to consider quite why air travel continued as it did.

The UK? Not even the first place to be hit hard by Covid in Europe?

I'd have plenty to criticise about the UK response to the pandemic but, "more responsible for global spread than the Chinese," isn't on my radar.

What a bizarre opinion.

Bizarre or not, the airports in the UK are perhaps the most intense possible sources on the planet.

Heathrow's a fairly busy international airport, but it's traffic dipped more than many during 2020. I really am not seeing it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic

Istanbul seems to have the most destinations.

All those Turkish barbers heading home to give their proceeds to Mrs. Barber?

You're dreadfully modern. My barbers have always been the Greek Cypriots.

SeaShantyIrish2

Scott_xP said:

@TomWitherow

New: Post Office's top lawyer has refused to give evidence to the public inquiry and can not be compelled as she lives abroad.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC: “We're not going to hear from her, she lives abroad and won't cooperate”.

Cannot be compelled, at THIS proceeding at THIS time.

BUT what about potential future proceedings, including professional AND criminal?

megasaur

dixiedean said:

Most bears aren't interested in attacking humans unless provoked or they think their cubs are in danger.
If you're carrying food, and hopefully you are in the woods, simply dropping it for them to eat while you escape will work. They are omnivores. And aren't interested in expending more energy than is necessary to fuel.
Polar bears are dangerous because of the lack of easy food. Even grizzlies won't attack you unless they have just woken up after hibernation.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/05/bear-attack-bad-canadian-hikers-grizzly-banff

An incident I am acutely aware of as I was camping with my son about 30 miles away. Note time of year which conflicts with your woken from hibernation theory. In autumn they are prepping a food stash and either think you are after it, or want to add you to it. Note also it got both of them and their dog. These are very frightening bastards and greatly feared by everyone over there.

Anabobazina

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Has he Goodwinned the BPC?

dixiedean

Cookie said:

dixiedean said:

If anyone doesn't believe the wisdom of being safer with a bear here are some facts.

https://illustratedteacup.com/how-many-bear-related-deaths-and-attacks-per-year/#:~:text=Offensive bear attacks are very,being attacked by a bear.
TLDR. 40 bear attacks on humans worldwide in an average year.
Cf. Human on human action.

Yes, but surely that's because humans and bears very rarely occupy tge same space. If you compare bear on human attacks as a proportion of human/bear interactions against human on human attacks as a proportion of all human interactions it probably looks less favourable.

Well indeed.
But there are c.15000 grizzlies in BC.
Amusingly they often swim to Vancouver Island. Cause panic, find there are no potential mates, get bored and swim back. It's not an unusual and finally story on the local news.
You can pay to go see them on salmon runs.

Northern_Al

On the header poll, those who are knowledgeable about gay culture will be aware that a 'bear' is hairy and cuddly but particularly harmless, especially, of course, to women, in whom they have no interest. So the results are no surprise.

Anabobazina

MoonRabbit said:

MaxPB said:

Richardr said:

MaxPB said:

MoonRabbit said:

MaxPB said:

"The election is going to be the third or fourth Thursday in November, the autumn fiscal event will be in the first or second week of October for a five week campaign. Expect another 2p off NI and maybe a surprise elsewhere as well as a manifesto commitment to abolish employee NI entirely over the next parliament."

Me, from yesterday evening.

Today Hunt is hinting at another 2p cut in NI in the autumn. This is going to be the election strategy. I have no doubt about it.

Me. From yesterday evening. “You’re talking Rubbish Max.”

Another 2p off NI ain’t a rabbit from a hat. It wasn’t at the last two.

I think another fiscal event is difficult.

For one thing expectations will be very high for a rabbit from the hat. Where are you saying the money is coming from for the somewhat less than a rabbit from the hat 2p off NI in your post? The two previous cuts have come not from growth nor reduced borrowing, but from fictitious headroom found 5 years down the line, that if that headroom proves a fiction in growth and borrowing movements needed, will actually require tax or NI rises to avoid swingeing cuts to government budgets, Home Office in particular.

Defence increase Sunak boasts is at least £70B and Labour won’t match the pledge - wasn’t in last budget maybe because it had to pass through an OBR. Do you think there can be another fiscal event without that defence promise getting through an OBR? If it’s not put through the OBR, it’s not a serious pledge. Ditto any pledge to eliminate NI, not put through OBR then worthless pledge as not backed up by the money.

Both another fiscal event and another conference promises more risks than rewards to the Sunak’s government.

And yet it's the Chancellor hinting at another fiscal event in the autumn and another NI cut. You may think it's difficult but the the calculation has been made that they are going to lose and they want cutting working people's tax as the legacy of the Tory government. Halving NI is something they can point to and when Labour try and raise it in government the Tories can accuse them of hurting working age people.

I can already see the election after this one is going to be a battle of working people vs non working people and the Tories are trying to make sure they have a legacy of helping working people before they get kicked out. That's the strategy, the Tories are putting together a winning coalition for 2029, not 2024 which is already lost. Having something very concrete to campaign on like halving the NI rate vs Labour pushing it up and having a 4 week campaign where the myth that NI funds pensions or the NHS can be broken helps the Tories in 2029.

There is clearly an acceptance that 2024 is lost and at best a damage limitation exercise. Any probable actions should be interpreted as moving the party in the direction of putting together a winning coalition for 2029 because the next 5 years are going to be absolute shit for Labour. They've got £40-50bn in welfare cuts to make or £40-50bn in tax raises. Labour will never cut welfare so the Tories are banking on Labour reversing the NI cuts.

Would Hunt and Sunak really be looking that far ahead? The record of this government so far doesn't suggest to me any long term plan, let alone one that they will almost certainly have left the top of the party before it is tested.

I think the men in grey suits that run the party are very much looking that far forwards and position for 2029 rather than 2024 which everyone accepts is lost.

This government already has the reputation for putting up taxes, they cannot be known for anything else going into the next election day, for even with a further NI cut, it’s still a higher tax burden than they inherited.

It is only a few years ago Rishi Sunak invented a whole new National Insurance to sort out the problem of social care once and for all. Has that problem with social care gone away with the money he took and still taking? Even with another pre election cut to something, he has still only given back part of what he’s already taken.

Another fiscal event is more a case of salting the earth, Gordon Brown style - who put up tax on wealth creation in 2010 just as Tories cut NI in last thing they do in 2024, knowing they are paying for these NI tax cuts from fictitious money that won’t exist in 2028-29 that means either terrible cuts in departmental spending or tax rises, probably both.

Can they get that £70B of defence spending increase through an OBR and still have anything for a rabbit from the hat?

Nope.

Another fiscal event will be so nakedly borrowing from a fantasy future red book it will hurt their campaign, not help it.

‘Fiscal event’ is (probably?) one of those annoying neologisms that quickly seeps into the language. Why not just say ‘tax cut’? Just more silly gobbledegook.

Omnium

Anabobazina said:

MoonRabbit said:

MaxPB said:

Richardr said:

MaxPB said:

MoonRabbit said:

MaxPB said:

"The election is going to be the third or fourth Thursday in November, the autumn fiscal event will be in the first or second week of October for a five week campaign. Expect another 2p off NI and maybe a surprise elsewhere as well as a manifesto commitment to abolish employee NI entirely over the next parliament."

Me, from yesterday evening.

Today Hunt is hinting at another 2p cut in NI in the autumn. This is going to be the election strategy. I have no doubt about it.

Me. From yesterday evening. “You’re talking Rubbish Max.”

Another 2p off NI ain’t a rabbit from a hat. It wasn’t at the last two.

I think another fiscal event is difficult.

For one thing expectations will be very high for a rabbit from the hat. Where are you saying the money is coming from for the somewhat less than a rabbit from the hat 2p off NI in your post? The two previous cuts have come not from growth nor reduced borrowing, but from fictitious headroom found 5 years down the line, that if that headroom proves a fiction in growth and borrowing movements needed, will actually require tax or NI rises to avoid swingeing cuts to government budgets, Home Office in particular.

Defence increase Sunak boasts is at least £70B and Labour won’t match the pledge - wasn’t in last budget maybe because it had to pass through an OBR. Do you think there can be another fiscal event without that defence promise getting through an OBR? If it’s not put through the OBR, it’s not a serious pledge. Ditto any pledge to eliminate NI, not put through OBR then worthless pledge as not backed up by the money.

Both another fiscal event and another conference promises more risks than rewards to the Sunak’s government.

And yet it's the Chancellor hinting at another fiscal event in the autumn and another NI cut. You may think it's difficult but the the calculation has been made that they are going to lose and they want cutting working people's tax as the legacy of the Tory government. Halving NI is something they can point to and when Labour try and raise it in government the Tories can accuse them of hurting working age people.

I can already see the election after this one is going to be a battle of working people vs non working people and the Tories are trying to make sure they have a legacy of helping working people before they get kicked out. That's the strategy, the Tories are putting together a winning coalition for 2029, not 2024 which is already lost. Having something very concrete to campaign on like halving the NI rate vs Labour pushing it up and having a 4 week campaign where the myth that NI funds pensions or the NHS can be broken helps the Tories in 2029.

There is clearly an acceptance that 2024 is lost and at best a damage limitation exercise. Any probable actions should be interpreted as moving the party in the direction of putting together a winning coalition for 2029 because the next 5 years are going to be absolute shit for Labour. They've got £40-50bn in welfare cuts to make or £40-50bn in tax raises. Labour will never cut welfare so the Tories are banking on Labour reversing the NI cuts.

Would Hunt and Sunak really be looking that far ahead? The record of this government so far doesn't suggest to me any long term plan, let alone one that they will almost certainly have left the top of the party before it is tested.

I think the men in grey suits that run the party are very much looking that far forwards and position for 2029 rather than 2024 which everyone accepts is lost.

This government already has the reputation for putting up taxes, they cannot be known for anything else going into the next election day, for even with a further NI cut, it’s still a higher tax burden than they inherited.

It is only a few years ago Rishi Sunak invented a whole new National Insurance to sort out the problem of social care once and for all. Has that problem with social care gone away with the money he took and still taking? Even with another pre election cut to something, he has still only given back part of what he’s already taken.

Another fiscal event is more a case of salting the earth, Gordon Brown style - who put up tax on wealth creation in 2010 just as Tories cut NI in last thing they do in 2024, knowing they are paying for these NI tax cuts from fictitious money that won’t exist in 2028-29 that means either terrible cuts in departmental spending or tax rises, probably both.

Can they get that £70B of defence spending increase through an OBR and still have anything for a rabbit from the hat?

Nope.

Another fiscal event will be so nakedly borrowing from a fantasy future red book it will hurt their campaign, not help it.

‘Fiscal event’ is (probably?) one of those annoying neologisms that quickly seeps into the language. Why not just say ‘tax cut’? Just more silly gobbledegook.

Truss had fiscal events. Whatever the economics I think medical science may want to take a look too.

kyf_100

Northern_Al said:

On the header poll, those who are knowledgeable about gay culture will be aware that a 'bear' is hairy and cuddly but particularly harmless, especially, of course, to women, in whom they have no interest. So the results are no surprise.

One of the best advertising campaigns that ever graced my desk was called "Goldilocks and the three bears", using your definition above. I loved it and took it to the CMO. Awkwardly, during the meeting, I had to explain to him what a 'bear' was and why the joke was funny...

TimS

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Has he Goodwinned the BPC?

Can we perhaps have a PB rules exception for Peoplepolling?

Last night it was decreed that the c bomb could be dropped for humanitarian reasons in relation to a small number of individuals.

So the rule that one must not cast aspersions on the professionalism of members of the BPF could perhaps we waived for Mr Goodwin

Leon

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

How many PBers have seen a bear in the wild?

I have. Driving through Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. Superb. A momma black bear just crossing the road as I drove

It is one of my remaining wildlife ambitions to see a polar bear in the wild. Imagine!

Saw a grizzly in British Columbia.
Was a long, long way away on the other side of a deep valley.

Mine was 20 foot away. I felt an intense spasm of fear - reflexive: seeing an apex predator

And yet it was nuts. I was safely in a car with lockable doors. The bear was more in danger of my running it over in my excitement

But it WAS exciting

megasaur

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/one-man-injured-grizzly-bear-dead-attack-elkford-bc

Today. It's great to emphasize that bears are god's chillun same as us, and not there to be taken out with a 30-06, but less great to be marketing them as loveable furballs.

SeaShantyIrish2

dixiedean said:

Cookie said:

dixiedean said:

If anyone doesn't believe the wisdom of being safer with a bear here are some facts.

https://illustratedteacup.com/how-many-bear-related-deaths-and-attacks-per-year/#:~:text=Offensive bear attacks are very,being attacked by a bear.
TLDR. 40 bear attacks on humans worldwide in an average year.
Cf. Human on human action.

Yes, but surely that's because humans and bears very rarely occupy tge same space. If you compare bear on human attacks as a proportion of human/bear interactions against human on human attacks as a proportion of all human interactions it probably looks less favourable.

Well indeed.
But there are c.15000 grizzlies in BC.
Amusingly they often swim to Vancouver Island. Cause panic, find there are no potential mates, get bored and swim back. It's not an unusual and finally story on the local news.
You can pay to go see them on salmon runs.

Similar case number of years ago down in Puget Sound, which is way more developed.

Young black bear swam from west to east, from (relative) wilderness to suburban sprawl. Spotted several times in following days. Finally captured and relocated to the Cascade Mountains, which is where it was apparently heading anyway.

megasaur

Taken by me on phone from car window.

ETA at Mount Norquay, and it's a bit sharper irl

Peter_the_Punter

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Scott_xP said:

@TomWitherow

New: Post Office's top lawyer has refused to give evidence to the public inquiry and can not be compelled as she lives abroad.

Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC: “We're not going to hear from her, she lives abroad and won't cooperate”.

Cannot be compelled, at THIS proceeding at THIS time.

BUT what about potential future proceedings, including professional AND criminal?

It hardly helps the PO case that their leading counsel at a critical time refuses to appear. The Inquiry is likely to draw its own conclusions from this.

Btw, there have been some really interesting developments this week. We have learned of the close relationship between Paula Vennels and Alice Perkins, former PO Chairman. The latter is perhaps better known as Mrs Jack Straw. Did Vennels face her tormentors with more confidence because of this political connection? Intriguing.

We have also seen today something of a breakdown in the organised defences of the PO witnesses. Today former CFO and Interim Chairman, Alisdair Campbell, appeared to be breaking ranks when he criticised Vennels in his witness statement, and under questioning. This could easily be interpreted as blame-shifting, but if that was his strategy, it was severely undermined when Jason Beer KC produced a handwritten letter from Campbell to Vennels in which he expressed the greatest admiration for her and thanks for the considerable assistance she had given him during thetime they had worked together.

Ms Vennels is due up next week. Popcorn at the ready, everyone?

Anabobazina

TimS said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Has he Goodwinned the BPC?

Can we perhaps have a PB rules exception for Peoplepolling?

Last night it was decreed that the c bomb could be dropped for humanitarian reasons in relation to a small number of individuals.

So the rule that one must not cast aspersions on the professionalism of members of the BPF could perhaps we waived for Mr Goodwin

You have a strong argument, in my view. Though I am not a moderator.

I believe a similar waiver was launched for the citation of Scottish subsampling, once a capital crime on here. My understanding is that it is now acceptable, provided a klaxon is sounded ahead of the subsample?

maxh

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

How many PBers have seen a bear in the wild?

I have. Driving through Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. Superb. A momma black bear just crossing the road as I drove

It is one of my remaining wildlife ambitions to see a polar bear in the wild. Imagine!

Saw a grizzly in British Columbia.
Was a long, long way away on the other side of a deep valley.

I saw one next to the road I was cycling along in Yellowstone. I felt VERY vulnerable, and kept fingering the bear spray on my handlebars. But agree it was majestic.

TheScreamingEagles

Anabobazina said:

TimS said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Has he Goodwinned the BPC?

Can we perhaps have a PB rules exception for Peoplepolling?

Last night it was decreed that the c bomb could be dropped for humanitarian reasons in relation to a small number of individuals.

So the rule that one must not cast aspersions on the professionalism of members of the BPF could perhaps we waived for Mr Goodwin

I believe a similar waiver was launched for the citation of Scottish subsampling, once a capital crime on here. My understanding is that it is now acceptable, provided a klaxon is sounded ahead of the subsample?

The rule is that you make it clear that it is a subsample.

What is not permitted is passing off a Scottish subsample as a full blown Scottish poll.

HYUFD

Maybe they just think they would be more protected with the bear than a man in the woods

TheScreamingEagles

TimS said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Has he Goodwinned the BPC?

Can we perhaps have a PB rules exception for Peoplepolling?

Last night it was decreed that the c bomb could be dropped for humanitarian reasons in relation to a small number of individuals.

So the rule that one must not cast aspersions on the professionalism of members of the BPF could perhaps we waived for Mr Goodwin

I am thinking about.

Other pollsters have made screw ups and fixed it asap.

So if this becomes a pattern...

Edit - That said some of his ludicrously worded supplementaries means I take the piss out of him/ignore his polling.

boulay

maxh said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

How many PBers have seen a bear in the wild?

I have. Driving through Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. Superb. A momma black bear just crossing the road as I drove

It is one of my remaining wildlife ambitions to see a polar bear in the wild. Imagine!

Saw a grizzly in British Columbia.
Was a long, long way away on the other side of a deep valley.

I saw one next to the road I was cycling along in Yellowstone. I felt VERY vulnerable, and kept fingering the bear spray on my handlebars. But agree it was majestic.

Bear sprays are such brazen sluts.

Anabobazina

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimS said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Has he Goodwinned the BPC?

Can we perhaps have a PB rules exception for Peoplepolling?

Last night it was decreed that the c bomb could be dropped for humanitarian reasons in relation to a small number of individuals.

So the rule that one must not cast aspersions on the professionalism of members of the BPF could perhaps we waived for Mr Goodwin

I am thinking about.

Other pollsters have made screw ups and fixed it asap.

So if this becomes a pattern...

Edit - That said some of his ludicrously worded supplementaries means I take the piss out of him/ignore his polling.

His polls always seem to show the Tories headed for certain extinction at the hands of the purist populist right. For the record, and for the avoidance of any doubt, this is entirely coincidental and the consequence of natural statistical variance.

Anabobazina

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

TimS said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Has he Goodwinned the BPC?

Can we perhaps have a PB rules exception for Peoplepolling?

Last night it was decreed that the c bomb could be dropped for humanitarian reasons in relation to a small number of individuals.

So the rule that one must not cast aspersions on the professionalism of members of the BPF could perhaps we waived for Mr Goodwin

I believe a similar waiver was launched for the citation of Scottish subsampling, once a capital crime on here. My understanding is that it is now acceptable, provided a klaxon is sounded ahead of the subsample?

The rule is that you make it clear that it is a sub sample.

What is not permitted is passing off a Scottish subsample as a full blown Scottish poll.

Channelling @Sunil_Prasannan …

Did you hear about the Glasgow-born psephologist with two Krakovian parents who got caught in a windstorm?

He was a…

HYUFD

FPT Careless cycling or dangerous cycling is NOT the same as careless cycling causing death or serious injury or dangerous cycling causing death or serious injury which the new law allows for. Death by dangerous driving is up to an 18 year sentence, wanton or furious cycling gives a maximum 2 year sentence

Going 9mph over the speed limit certainly could come under careless or even dangerous driving or cycling as the police website says and yes motorists DO get charged with going that much over the speed limit. The police in question would almost certainly take such actions further once the new law comes in

https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/driving-offences/

MattW

Cookie said:

dixiedean said:

If anyone doesn't believe the wisdom of being safer with a bear here are some facts.

https://illustratedteacup.com/how-many-bear-related-deaths-and-attacks-per-year/#:~:text=Offensive bear attacks are very,being attacked by a bear.
TLDR. 40 bear attacks on humans worldwide in an average year.
Cf. Human on human action.

Yes, but surely that's because humans and bears very rarely occupy tge same space. If you compare bear on human attacks as a proportion of human/bear interactions against human on human attacks as a proportion of all human interactions it probably looks less favourable.

By definition they only occupy the space when one has been consumed, Shirley?

No_Offence_Alan

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

Nice to see a lighthearted thread.

Presumably those who choose the bear get eaten, win a Darwin Award, and improve the Average Quality (IQ, if you like) of humanity by removing themselves from the calculation.

A sort of self-imposed Voluntary Opt-in Eugenics.

How many humans die as a result of bear attacks annually? I’m too lazy to Google it!

And aren't more women attacked each year by men they do know than by men they don't?

williamglenn

TimS said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Matt Goodwin's firm have published the following poll

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (+1)
RFM: 14% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 0% (-4)

But his figures are bollocks

lmao Goodwin's published headline figures based on an obviously error-strewn data table:

Here's the data without adjustments. Looks clear to me that the table the headline figures are drawn from, once undecideds and likelihood to vote are factored in, is missing a row of data - the SNP figures should be Plaid's, Plaid's should be in the 'some other party' row.

The error with the table is the rows from SNP down. Hard to know exactly what the problem is (many ways to build a set of tabs), but the SNP data isn't being pulled through and the code is skipping over to the Plaid data (then back round to the unweighted sample at the bottom).

I find this very funny, but it's also very annoying. Casts a poor light on the industry that an outfit that can't check a three-page set of tables properly is publishing polls with BPC membership attached to them.


https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507

Has he Goodwinned the BPC?

Can we perhaps have a PB rules exception for Peoplepolling?

Last night it was decreed that the c bomb could be dropped for humanitarian reasons in relation to a small number of individuals.

So the rule that one must not cast aspersions on the professionalism of members of the BPF could perhaps we waived for Mr Goodwin

Are you saing Goodwin is a total Osborne?

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Maybe they just think they would be more protected with the bear than a man in the woods

Very much the opposite. If you look on TikTok etc at the meme it is clear that women in general and young women in particular fear attack from unknown men more than they fear bears.

This may well be not realistic, but on forums like this that are male dominated it is easy to miss how many women feel their lives are restricted by the presence of men and the contant fear of us with the implied threat of sexual violence

HYUFD

HYUFD said:

FPT Careless cycling or dangerous cycling is NOT the same as careless cycling causing death or serious injury or dangerous cycling causing death or serious injury which the new law allows for. Death by dangerous driving is up to an 18 year sentence, wanton or furious cycling gives a maximum 2 year sentence

Going 9mph over the speed limit certainly could come under careless or even dangerous driving or cycling as the police website says and yes motorists DO get charged with going that much over the speed limit. The police in question would almost certainly take such actions further once the new law comes in

https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/driving-offences/

The maximum sentence for dangerous cycling however is just a £2500 fine.