This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
I can absolutely believe local LE ware bribed (or threatened) to look the other way.
The shooter having absolutely virtually no internet footprint is a red flag for me that makes me think this is maybe more than a random weird loner.
Random weird loners LOVE posting random shit on the internet. Er, probably.
Either way, they usually don't have zero online footprint before showing up with an AR15 to kill the former and possibly next President. That alone stinks to f*k.
I thought he was active on discord? Why does he have to use anything else?
Discord opened his profile and found almost zero activity and nothing political. Or so they say
Newsnight: dissent in Labour ranks already, with Kim Johnson MP pointing out that there's nothing in the King's Speech addressing child poverty, whereas there was in the Labour manifesto. She's the MP for Liverpool Riverside.
That should be addressed in the budget not Kings speech?
Vance is not universally popular with the more racist fringes of the US right.
Nick Fuentes: “J.D. Vance also has an Indian wife and a kid named Vivek. All his kids have Indian names—so it’s like, what exactly are we getting here? And that’s not a dig at him just because I’m a racist or something. But who is this guy really?” https://x.com/IsaacDovere/status/1813237902739931455
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
I think it would be a great thing.
But I doubt many going to see the doctor want to be lectured on global warming.
Not least because we're continually told that doctors don't have enough time to see all their patients.
And, forgive me for being cynical, I wonder if we'll see yet more admin and 'targets' to see if doctors are doing what is deemed necessary for a 'net zero NHS'.
If you bother reading the actual RCP report it is mostly about reducing wastage, and also flagging up those most at risk from increasingly frequent and severe adverse weather events such as heatwaves.
But why bother when you can hop straight on the outrage bus?
The outrage bus ? Thats's not my destination.
I know full well what bus I was on - it was the cynical one
Anyway I would guess that the reduction in winter freezing more than makes up for any increase in summer heatwaves as a health factor.
One of the things that is often overlooked - winter cold kills more than summer heat, certainly for the U.K.
Yes but we are more used to dealing with it, and there is good reason to advise patients of the risks of both. It isn't either/or.
I think the issue is that giving advice about how to avoid death from excess heat IS a useful exercise for a doctor, telling them about climate change being affected by NHS actions probably isn’t, and might be more useful for a practice manager or other staff.
Yes, but staff is who the document is aimed at.
Top line says doctors to discuss climate change with their patients. Unless that’s misleading?
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
The rub is identifying "unnecessary", and whether a business case exists to justify such a move. The last thing we need is innumerate senior management looking for easy deductions behaving like lobotomised neo-Thatcherites or (to quote the Times) "Marxists".
If you take diabetes, 90% of the money (£10bn a year ish?) spent goes on treatment of complications.
There are normal blood tests and various others every year, and eg CGM (continuous glucose monitorin - as used by eg Theresa May from 2016) has been rolled out *far* more extensively in the last decade. The blood tests are not cheap - my CGM monitor costs at BNP prices approximately £900 per annum; but that is cheap compared to potential costs of complications.
It's the same with eg the Diabetes Prevention Programme, which addresses Type II and has been running for nearly a decade. The evidence currently (@Foxy may have better data) is that it reduces progression to Type II diabetes amongst pre-diabetics by 20%.
All of that - including currently rolling out Insulin Pumps to essentially all Type I Diabetics - has got past the NICE financial tests, which are not mild.
Get rid of prevention structures, and it will be like Rishi - spending investments for the future on revenue now.
Yes, both CGM and the Diabetes Prevention Programme are good examples of smallish costs that save a lot of admissions and complications down the line.
Virtually all my Type 1 patients love the data and control that their CGM gives them, and nearly all have much better control. It is also very psychologically good for them. The closed loop systems even more so.
I think psychological aspects of diabetes are underestimated by most practitioners. The root cause of poor control amongst my patients is in their heads. I have patients in denial, in depression, with eating disorders, with anger management issues and substance abuse. It's a tough condition to live with and people do not get a holiday from it. Psychological support and empowerment via CGM can really put some of my patients back in control of their lives.
It is a pain in the arse and the worst thing is that if you really go for it, get your weight down, do your 10,000 steps and eat well (low carb) it works for a while, then your pancreas gives out a bit more a few months later and you are back to square one. At which point you think Fuck it and stuff yourself with doughnuts as you feel you can't win either way (type 2)
In one sense you can't win, but you can "lose less", which has a cumulative benefit. Self-stuffing with donuts is not necessarily a big problem, unless you do it every day for years on end.
I can make an analogy with Type I. I was diagnosed Type I in my early 30s in 2001 (~65,000 insulin injections since), and I am now in my 50s just getting my first whiff of complications needing treatment - a bit of retinopathy (eyes).
Depending on control, that could have been after 10 years or 30+ years. Theresa May (diagnosed at 56) or Lindsay Hoyle (diagnosed at 63) won't have that problem as they will probably have popped their clogs by the time complications arrive.
OTOH a child diagnosed at the age of 3, like Victoria Atkins MP, has a greater need for top control throughout. I know people who have been functionally blind by their early 20s, as a result of poor control.
For type 2, back in 2000 it was usually 6-7 years before the condition was caught, sometimes because a complication was noticed. That I think has now improved dramatically with better monitoring (data - @Foxy ?).
Every bit gained now makes a big difference later. So keep doing what you can . Walk more, get a tricycle for local stuff, a dog that needs 5 miles a day, or other small things - it really does all help.
Personally I try to have a list of good habits and make them practices - but maintaining motivation on a complex routine all day every day for decades is the really tough one, just the effort to stay interested. One good one is to swap milk chocolate with high quality dark chocolate with less sugar. It all helps but I'm not as disciplined as @BartholomewRoberts on his recent weight-loss programme.
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
The problem with all conspiracy theories is that they all require an extraordinary level of complicity and planning by large numbers of people, who then have to keep omerta that is tighter than any mafiosa.
Even if PC Plod wanted Trump dead, how could he be sure his mates did too?, and why would the centrepiece be an inexperience 20 year old who works as a diet assistant in a care home?
No, they don’t. They need a few local cops looking away at the right time, and an inept seekyservs stuffed with tiny inexperienced women. Voila
Vance is not universally popular with the more racist fringes of the US right.
Nick Fuentes: “J.D. Vance also has an Indian wife and a kid named Vivek. All his kids have Indian names—so it’s like, what exactly are we getting here? And that’s not a dig at him just because I’m a racist or something. But who is this guy really?” https://x.com/IsaacDovere/status/1813237902739931455
Yes. Quite so
This is not acquired pb knowledge but there is a large faction of hard right republicans that think post-sassytempt Trump has already gone soft and Vance is further proof that they’re moving to the centre
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia?
I don't think most of Europe would listen to such an instruction - unless forced by eg secret kill switches exist.
Would we refrain from using F35s if Mr Chump or Mr Vance said so when we were under attack? Not on your nelly.
That’s not what it’s about. We knew what was happening in Ukraine at the start of the invasion largely because of US satellite and surveillance aircraft intelligence. Vance is advocating withdrawing that capability from Europe. Trump might well partially or wholly withdraw the US nuclear umbrella from Europe. Were that to happen, the confidence if the weaker member states that the rest of NATO would come to their aid is reduced, obviously.
Note he describes it as a “worst case scenario” we have to plan for, not a prediction of what will happen. If we don’t plan for, and take steps to deter it, then it tends to become more likely.
Whose F35s are going to be there is (for example) Putin were to stage an incursion into Romania ? What if Orban denied overflights ?
Not just continental Europe. Trump-Vance are very clear: Labour is an Islamist party. The next step is to suspect security cooperation with Starmer's government as a security risk. Then there will be a trans-Atlantic campaign to install Farage as PM.
Which wouldn't work, British voters take no more notice of what Americans think of their party leaders than American voters take notice of what the British think of their presidential candidates
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
The problem with all conspiracy theories is that they all require an extraordinary level of complicity and planning by large numbers of people, who then have to keep omerta that is tighter than any mafiosa.
Even if PC Plod wanted Trump dead, how could he be sure his mates did too?, and why would the centrepiece be an inexperience 20 year old who works as a diet assistant in a care home?
No, they don’t. They need a few local cops looking away at the right time, and an inept seekyservs stuffed with tiny inexperienced women. Voila
It sounds like a case of 'elf and safety rather than a conspiracy.
When the secret service director says they didn't put someone on the roof because it was sloping and therefore dangerous, I can very much believe her.
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
The problem with all conspiracy theories is that they all require an extraordinary level of complicity and planning by large numbers of people, who then have to keep omerta that is tighter than any mafiosa.
Even if PC Plod wanted Trump dead, how could he be sure his mates did too?, and why would the centrepiece be an inexperience 20 year old who works as a diet assistant in a care home?
No, they don’t. They need a few local cops looking away at the right time, and an inept seekyservs stuffed with tiny inexperienced women. Voila
That isn't a conspiracy it is just incompetence.
Looking away “at the right time” is the conspiratorial bit. Quite plausible
Trump is widely disliked by a lot of cops and soldiers
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia?
I don't think most of Europe would listen to such an instruction - unless forced by eg secret kill switches exist.
Would we refrain from using F35s if Mr Chump or Mr Vance said so when we were under attack? Not on your nelly.
That’s not what it’s about. We knew what was happening in Ukraine at the start of the invasion largely because of US satellite and surveillance aircraft intelligence. Vance is advocating withdrawing that capability from Europe. Trump might well partially or wholly withdraw the US nuclear umbrella from Europe. Were that to happen, the confidence if the weaker member states that the rest of NATO would come to their aid is reduced, obviously.
Note he describes it as a “worst case scenario” we have to plan for, not a prediction of what will happen. If we don’t plan for, and take steps to deter it, then it tends to become more likely.
Whose F35s are going to be there is (for example) Putin were to stage an incursion into Romania ? What if Orban denied overflights ?
Not just continental Europe. Trump-Vance are very clear: Labour is an Islamist party. The next step is to suspect security cooperation with Starmer's government as a security risk. Then there will be a trans-Atlantic campaign to install Farage as PM.
Which wouldn't work, British voters take no more notice of what Americans think of their party leaders than American voters take notice of what the British think of their presidential candidates
Maybe they'll start organising colour revolutions in western countries.
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
The problem with all conspiracy theories is that they all require an extraordinary level of complicity and planning by large numbers of people, who then have to keep omerta that is tighter than any mafiosa.
Even if PC Plod wanted Trump dead, how could he be sure his mates did too?, and why would the centrepiece be an inexperience 20 year old who works as a diet assistant in a care home?
No, they don’t. They need a few local cops looking away at the right time, and an inept seekyservs stuffed with tiny inexperienced women. Voila
1. Father very conservative gun owner 2. Son being bullied at school for being so conservative. 3. Son tries to shoot his fathers God figure 4. Son has profile of school shooter 5. Son was pressured by father to be a conservative instead of being like his friends thus bringing ridicule by his classmates. 6. Son’s motive was getting back at his father by taking out his father’s God figure.
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
I can absolutely believe local LE ware bribed (or threatened) to look the other way.
The shooter having absolutely virtually no internet footprint is a red flag for me that makes me think this is maybe more than a random weird loner.
Random weird loners LOVE posting random shit on the internet. Er, probably.
Either way, they usually don't have zero online footprint before showing up with an AR15 to kill the former and possibly next President. That alone stinks to f*k.
Try searching for old school or college mates, or even current colleagues. Lots of people don't post on social media. Hence the pb mantra that TwiX is not real life.
You'd be surprised how easy it's getting to link supposedly un-linked data with AI.
For example, people have pored over the question of whether Hal Finney is Satoshi Nakamoto (the inventor of Bitcoin) by comparing their writing styles - down to the use of commas - on various internet forums.
Now with AI that written data can be trawled and matches found relatively easily. I assume the government knows exactly who I am on this anonymous tiny corner of the web because they can match my writing style 100% with my gmail account.
Similarly people who don't use social media. At 20, even if you don't use it, all your friends do. There are AI search engines out there that use the same recognition technology as passport control to find matching images of you, say here - https://pimeyes.com/en
The above search engine is able to take a passport photo of you and work out, say, if you uploaded a semi-occluded image of yourself in a dogging nightspot having it away with some random bird in a car park ten years ago.
That is the level AI tech is at now. On the internet, assume *nothing* is anonymous.
Great to meet President Trump who is on top form after the shameful attempt on his life. We discussed Ukraine and I have no doubt that he will be strong and decisive in supporting that country and defending democracy.
Boris would make an excellent Governor/ Viceroy of Great Britain when President Trump and Vice President Vance overthrow Starmer- Labour, although Farage probably thought that was his gig.
If Trump returns to power after losing office, Boris will almost certainly try and follow suit and try and find a safe seat next year
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
I think it would be a great thing.
But I doubt many going to see the doctor want to be lectured on global warming.
Not least because we're continually told that doctors don't have enough time to see all their patients.
And, forgive me for being cynical, I wonder if we'll see yet more admin and 'targets' to see if doctors are doing what is deemed necessary for a 'net zero NHS'.
If you bother reading the actual RCP report it is mostly about reducing wastage, and also flagging up those most at risk from increasingly frequent and severe adverse weather events such as heatwaves.
But why bother when you can hop straight on the outrage bus?
The outrage bus ? Thats's not my destination.
I know full well what bus I was on - it was the cynical one
Anyway I would guess that the reduction in winter freezing more than makes up for any increase in summer heatwaves as a health factor.
One of the things that is often overlooked - winter cold kills more than summer heat, certainly for the U.K.
Yes but we are more used to dealing with it, and there is good reason to advise patients of the risks of both. It isn't either/or.
I think the issue is that giving advice about how to avoid death from excess heat IS a useful exercise for a doctor, telling them about climate change being affected by NHS actions probably isn’t, and might be more useful for a practice manager or other staff.
Yes, but staff is who the document is aimed at.
Top line says doctors to discuss climate change with their patients. Unless that’s misleading?
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
Vance is not universally popular with the more racist fringes of the US right.
Nick Fuentes: “J.D. Vance also has an Indian wife and a kid named Vivek. All his kids have Indian names—so it’s like, what exactly are we getting here? And that’s not a dig at him just because I’m a racist or something. But who is this guy really?” https://x.com/IsaacDovere/status/1813237902739931455
Yes. Quite so
This is not acquired pb knowledge but there is a large faction of hard right republicans that think post-sassytempt Trump has already gone soft and Vance is further proof that they’re moving to the centre
Given his view on abortion aswell as other social issues I wouldn’t call that moving to the centre .
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
Of course if Trump won in November and Le Pen or Melenchon won the 2027 French presidential election, France would no longer be supporting Ukraine as much either. It would be left to the UK, Poland, Germany, Italy and Canada to increase their military spending even more to support Zelensky
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
The rub is identifying "unnecessary", and whether a business case exists to justify such a move. The last thing we need is innumerate senior management looking for easy deductions behaving like lobotomised neo-Thatcherites or (to quote the Times) "Marxists".
If you take diabetes, 90% of the money (£10bn a year ish?) spent goes on treatment of complications.
There are normal blood tests and various others every year, and eg CGM (continuous glucose monitorin - as used by eg Theresa May from 2016) has been rolled out *far* more extensively in the last decade. The blood tests are not cheap - my CGM monitor costs at BNP prices approximately £900 per annum; but that is cheap compared to potential costs of complications.
It's the same with eg the Diabetes Prevention Programme, which addresses Type II and has been running for nearly a decade. The evidence currently (@Foxy may have better data) is that it reduces progression to Type II diabetes amongst pre-diabetics by 20%.
All of that - including currently rolling out Insulin Pumps to essentially all Type I Diabetics - has got past the NICE financial tests, which are not mild.
Get rid of prevention structures, and it will be like Rishi - spending investments for the future on revenue now.
Yes, both CGM and the Diabetes Prevention Programme are good examples of smallish costs that save a lot of admissions and complications down the line.
Virtually all my Type 1 patients love the data and control that their CGM gives them, and nearly all have much better control. It is also very psychologically good for them. The closed loop systems even more so.
I think psychological aspects of diabetes are underestimated by most practitioners. The root cause of poor control amongst my patients is in their heads. I have patients in denial, in depression, with eating disorders, with anger management issues and substance abuse. It's a tough condition to live with and people do not get a holiday from it. Psychological support and empowerment via CGM can really put some of my patients back in control of their lives.
It is a pain in the arse and the worst thing is that if you really go for it, get your weight down, do your 10,000 steps and eat well (low carb) it works for a while, then your pancreas gives out a bit more a few months later and you are back to square one. At which point you think Fuck it and stuff yourself with doughnuts as you feel you can't win either way (type 2).
CGM would be nice but they don't prescribe it for type 2 (so £100 a month to buy) In fact I was several years in before they prescribed test strips. Had been buying them for years on amazon before that. Heaven knows how people are supposed to monitor progress and what spikes you etc with just an annual HBa1C.
I agree, and it is the nature of Type 2 that it becomes harder to control over time as endogenous insulin production and effectiveness fails.
In time a lot will require insulin, but this shouldn't be seen as failure, and indeed a lot of the language used adds to the psychological damage as if it is all down to sloth, gluttony and lack of moral fibre. People need support rather than criticism.
CGM are increasingly being rolled out to type 2 subgroups, though in general best for insulin users.
Newsnight: dissent in Labour ranks already, with Kim Johnson MP pointing out that there's nothing in the King's Speech addressing child poverty, whereas there was in the Labour manifesto. She's the MP for Liverpool Riverside.
So they are retaining the two-child cap and ignoring child poverty. Hmm. 🤔
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
I think it would be a great thing.
But I doubt many going to see the doctor want to be lectured on global warming.
Not least because we're continually told that doctors don't have enough time to see all their patients.
And, forgive me for being cynical, I wonder if we'll see yet more admin and 'targets' to see if doctors are doing what is deemed necessary for a 'net zero NHS'.
If you bother reading the actual RCP report it is mostly about reducing wastage, and also flagging up those most at risk from increasingly frequent and severe adverse weather events such as heatwaves.
But why bother when you can hop straight on the outrage bus?
The outrage bus ? Thats's not my destination.
I know full well what bus I was on - it was the cynical one
Anyway I would guess that the reduction in winter freezing more than makes up for any increase in summer heatwaves as a health factor.
One of the things that is often overlooked - winter cold kills more than summer heat, certainly for the U.K.
Yes but we are more used to dealing with it, and there is good reason to advise patients of the risks of both. It isn't either/or.
I think the issue is that giving advice about how to avoid death from excess heat IS a useful exercise for a doctor, telling them about climate change being affected by NHS actions probably isn’t, and might be more useful for a practice manager or other staff.
Yes, but staff is who the document is aimed at.
Top line says doctors to discuss climate change with their patients. Unless that’s misleading?
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Do we have a date for the leadership election yet? Not an exact one, obvs, more to the nearest three months.
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Do we have a date for the leadership election yet? Not an exact one, obvs, more to the nearest three months.
The Tories surely need to have a new leader in place by the start of October. So within 11 weeks or so. They would probably look slightly ridiculous if they hadn't got a new leader by then imo.
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
I think it would be a great thing.
But I doubt many going to see the doctor want to be lectured on global warming.
Not least because we're continually told that doctors don't have enough time to see all their patients.
And, forgive me for being cynical, I wonder if we'll see yet more admin and 'targets' to see if doctors are doing what is deemed necessary for a 'net zero NHS'.
If you bother reading the actual RCP report it is mostly about reducing wastage, and also flagging up those most at risk from increasingly frequent and severe adverse weather events such as heatwaves.
But why bother when you can hop straight on the outrage bus?
The outrage bus ? Thats's not my destination.
I know full well what bus I was on - it was the cynical one
Anyway I would guess that the reduction in winter freezing more than makes up for any increase in summer heatwaves as a health factor.
One of the things that is often overlooked - winter cold kills more than summer heat, certainly for the U.K.
Yes but we are more used to dealing with it, and there is good reason to advise patients of the risks of both. It isn't either/or.
I think the issue is that giving advice about how to avoid death from excess heat IS a useful exercise for a doctor, telling them about climate change being affected by NHS actions probably isn’t, and might be more useful for a practice manager or other staff.
Yes, but staff is who the document is aimed at.
Top line says doctors to discuss climate change with their patients. Unless that’s misleading?
I'm not sure who you mean by "Top Line".
AFAICS it's the RCP, not NHS management.
A touch virtue-signally perhaps, but not much of a concern.
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Do we have a date for the leadership election yet? Not an exact one, obvs, more to the nearest three months.
The Tories surely need to have a new leader in place by the start of October. So within 11 weeks or so. They would probably look slightly ridiculous if they hadn't got a new leader by then imo.
Tories already look WAY more than "slightly ridiculous" so hardly motivation to rush to (mis)judgement.
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Do we have a date for the leadership election yet? Not an exact one, obvs, more to the nearest three months.
The Tories surely need to have a new leader in place by the start of October. So within 11 weeks or so. They would probably look slightly ridiculous if they hadn't got a new leader by then imo.
Thank you, @Andy_JS . That's closer than I thought...☹️
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
I can absolutely believe local LE ware bribed (or threatened) to look the other way.
The shooter having absolutely virtually no internet footprint is a red flag for me that makes me think this is maybe more than a random weird loner.
Random weird loners LOVE posting random shit on the internet. Er, probably.
Either way, they usually don't have zero online footprint before showing up with an AR15 to kill the former and possibly next President. That alone stinks to f*k.
I thought he was active on discord? Why does he have to use anything else?
Discord opened his profile and found almost zero activity and nothing political. Or so they say
You're just constantly shifting from bullshit to bullshit. You said he had no presence on the internet and that this was incredibly weird. Specifically you said he was "the only person in the world with no presence on the internet? That alone is unbelievable".
But he did, at a minimum he had a Discord account. So then you shift to, he had no *political* presence on the internet. But this is not abnormal! Most people do not post about politics on the internet, not least because the places you might want to have a conversation quickly get spammed to death by people who pick up some bullshit somewhere and decide they want to amplify it.
Doctors have been told to discuss climate change with their patients in guidance that says they are “uniquely placed” as a trusted members of the community to explain the impacts of global warming.
A “green toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) also advises doctors to reduce “unnecessary” prescriptions and blood tests to help the NHS to reach its net zero target.
Pumping more money into the NHS is “not feasible” while it fails to improve productivity, Labour’s new health adviser has warned as he insisted GPs and hospitals must be rewired to spend public funds better.
You don't think that reducing unnecessary prescriptions and blood tests would be a good thing?
The rub is identifying "unnecessary", and whether a business case exists to justify such a move. The last thing we need is innumerate senior management looking for easy deductions behaving like lobotomised neo-Thatcherites or (to quote the Times) "Marxists".
If you take diabetes, 90% of the money (£10bn a year ish?) spent goes on treatment of complications.
There are normal blood tests and various others every year, and eg CGM (continuous glucose monitorin - as used by eg Theresa May from 2016) has been rolled out *far* more extensively in the last decade. The blood tests are not cheap - my CGM monitor costs at BNP prices approximately £900 per annum; but that is cheap compared to potential costs of complications.
It's the same with eg the Diabetes Prevention Programme, which addresses Type II and has been running for nearly a decade. The evidence currently (@Foxy may have better data) is that it reduces progression to Type II diabetes amongst pre-diabetics by 20%.
All of that - including currently rolling out Insulin Pumps to essentially all Type I Diabetics - has got past the NICE financial tests, which are not mild.
Get rid of prevention structures, and it will be like Rishi - spending investments for the future on revenue now.
Yes, both CGM and the Diabetes Prevention Programme are good examples of smallish costs that save a lot of admissions and complications down the line.
Virtually all my Type 1 patients love the data and control that their CGM gives them, and nearly all have much better control. It is also very psychologically good for them. The closed loop systems even more so.
I think psychological aspects of diabetes are underestimated by most practitioners. The root cause of poor control amongst my patients is in their heads. I have patients in denial, in depression, with eating disorders, with anger management issues and substance abuse. It's a tough condition to live with and people do not get a holiday from it. Psychological support and empowerment via CGM can really put some of my patients back in control of their lives.
It is a pain in the arse and the worst thing is that if you really go for it, get your weight down, do your 10,000 steps and eat well (low carb) it works for a while, then your pancreas gives out a bit more a few months later and you are back to square one. At which point you think Fuck it and stuff yourself with doughnuts as you feel you can't win either way (type 2).
CGM would be nice but they don't prescribe it for type 2 (so £100 a month to buy) In fact I was several years in before they prescribed test strips. Had been buying them for years on amazon before that. Heaven knows how people are supposed to monitor progress and what spikes you etc with just an annual HBa1C.
I agree, and it is the nature of Type 2 that it becomes harder to control over time as endogenous insulin production and effectiveness fails.
In time a lot will require insulin, but this shouldn't be seen as failure, and indeed a lot of the language used adds to the psychological damage as if it is all down to sloth, gluttony and lack of moral fibre. People need support rather than criticism.
CGM are increasingly being rolled out to type 2 subgroups, though in general best for insulin users.
I've seen people who have handled it for Type II as they used to with the Type Is back in the day - get it for a period for say a month. I see people getting that in the Facebook group for my sensor which is a Freestyle Libre.
Back in the late 1990s lucky Type Is with an innovative clinic would get a CGM from a hospital clinic for a week to help understand how blood sugars reacted in their own life. Here's an account from a chap called John Davis from Insulin Pumpers UK from July 2000; he is (or was?) a key activist in getting the therapy into the UK. The surprise at the extra information is stark.
At that time we did up to about 4 blood tests a day, so lost all the fine detail, though some GPs were very reluctant to give out many test strips. I fortunately always had GPs who did as they were told, and accepted that I needed enough test strips to do 6 per day.
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
At the moment I think MPs would make Jenrick and Tugendhat in the last 2, with the members picking Jenrick
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
The problem with all conspiracy theories is that they all require an extraordinary level of complicity and planning by large numbers of people, who then have to keep omerta that is tighter than any mafiosa.
Even if PC Plod wanted Trump dead, how could he be sure his mates did too?, and why would the centrepiece be an inexperience 20 year old who works as a diet assistant in a care home?
No, they don’t. They need a few local cops looking away at the right time, and an inept seekyservs stuffed with tiny inexperienced women. Voila
It sounds like a case of 'elf and safety rather than a conspiracy.
When the secret service director says they didn't put someone on the roof because it was sloping and therefore dangerous, I can very much believe her.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Please define "serious cuts in public spending" - should that include defence? It might have to.
We have to think about tax rises or reducing the current thresholds if you don't want to actually increase the rates.
It's disappointing the debate starts again from cutting public spending as the only way to reduce the deficit - bringing in more from tax does as well so a balanced approach between the two (not the £5 cut for £1 raised from spending as Osborne tried but a £3/£3 approach).
The austerity of Osborne worked and things improved until we got blown off course by Covid and our response to it. Then we had the cost of gas and power on the back of the Ukraine invasion. So we do need to do it again until our spending and our income are more in balance.
So the government said most businesses would receive a discount on their energy bills of up to 6.97 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for gas and 19.61 pounds per MWh for electricity between April 2023 and March 2024. Probably helped us avoid a recession but at what a cost. Do we need to subsidise public transport to the extent that we do, as was being discussed down thread? Can we really afford to keep giving the NHS a blank cheque to do everything or do we need to be start being more realistic about what they can and can't do?
Are you saying everything was tickety-boo until about Feb 2020?
No, but we were digging ourselves out of a hole gradually. It simply cannot be overstated how dependent we were on financial services to pay the bills before 2008. RBS went from being the largest taxpayer in the country to not paying any tax in the next 10 years. That required some serious tax increases on the better paid and a sharp, sharp focus on spending.
And then, before the damage had been fully made good, we got blown off course again. There are absolutely no easy solutions to this. As I have said already I do not envy Reeves her task.
If they had made proper, serious reform to the UKG finances I think I'd agree. But they cut everything they thought they could get away with and then tinkered at the edges.
VAT on pasties? Yes! Reform of local government services and funding? No!
The fuss about VAT on pasties was absolutely absurd. We had several years of this when people were much more interested in a silly gotcha than analysing the underlying direction.
1) you can have a world where a short plank bridge costs £250k and cataloging the British Museum will cost £250 million and take 10 years. And social workers spend 80% of their time on paperwork.
2) a short plank bridge costs £250, cataloguing the British Library is done by volunteers with a small amount of public money. And the social workers spend 80% of their time on social work.
Your choice.
1) Creates loads of middle class non-jobs 2) Does not create lots of middle class non-jobs
The world is creating increasing numbers of debt laden graduates who require jobs.
That is exactly correct.
But The Gods of The Copybook Headings have woken up.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man— There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:— That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
I can absolutely believe local LE ware bribed (or threatened) to look the other way.
The shooter having absolutely virtually no internet footprint is a red flag for me that makes me think this is maybe more than a random weird loner.
Random weird loners LOVE posting random shit on the internet. Er, probably.
Either way, they usually don't have zero online footprint before showing up with an AR15 to kill the former and possibly next President. That alone stinks to f*k.
I thought he was active on discord? Why does he have to use anything else?
Discord opened his profile and found almost zero activity and nothing political. Or so they say
You're just constantly shifting from bullshit to bullshit. You said he had no presence on the internet and that this was incredibly weird. Specifically you said he was "the only person in the world with no presence on the internet? That alone is unbelievable".
But he did, at a minimum he had a Discord account. So then you shift to, he had no *political* presence on the internet. But this is not abnormal! Most people do not post about politics on the internet, not least because the places you might want to have a conversation quickly get spammed to death by people who pick up some bullshit somewhere and decide they want to amplify it.
I’m simply telling the truth. As per the New York Times. They say that Discord opened his account and found very little activity and nothing political
Are we to believe they’ve lied? Why?
Apart from that Crooks appears to have zero internet impact. Which is very very odd
That’s it. The fact you get so overwrought about this is telling in itself
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Do we have a date for the leadership election yet? Not an exact one, obvs, more to the nearest three months.
The Tories surely need to have a new leader in place by the start of October. So within 11 weeks or so. They would probably look slightly ridiculous if they hadn't got a new leader by then imo.
If the plan is to use the party conference as hustings for the final two, then that already takes us to the start of October.
Former (and possibly current) Milburn SpAd. That will not age well the next time someone dies because of a missed diagnosis.
It's probably best not to set a target that can be met by killing your patients. Shipman's bonus would be huge.
When my mother was dying of cancer in hospital, a nurse refused to wash her hands, literally saying in front of me and my brother that it was better if she caught an infection and died.
At that point her pain was under control, she was perfectly capable of all kinds of things. And made jokes and laughed at them - I recall that a very senior medical ethics chap argued that the capacity to understand and enjoy humour was a key indicator of quality of life (internal laughter at least, since some cannot physically laugh).
So we all went to chat with the head shed on duty. She was defensive - claiming that since death was inevitable it was better it came now, rather than wasting resources.
I explained my view of the matter. Interestingly, the staple of Victorian melodrama, “the hands rushing to the throat, protectively”, is true for some people.
Lester Holt: "If you were to have, continue to run and be officially nominated, what happens if you have another episode like we saw during the debate?"
Biden: "What happensuvinimina?"
Holt: "Yeah, what happens if you have another performance on that par, on that level?"
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
I can absolutely believe local LE ware bribed (or threatened) to look the other way.
The shooter having absolutely virtually no internet footprint is a red flag for me that makes me think this is maybe more than a random weird loner.
Random weird loners LOVE posting random shit on the internet. Er, probably.
Either way, they usually don't have zero online footprint before showing up with an AR15 to kill the former and possibly next President. That alone stinks to f*k.
I thought he was active on discord? Why does he have to use anything else?
Discord opened his profile and found almost zero activity and nothing political. Or so they say
You're just constantly shifting from bullshit to bullshit. You said he had no presence on the internet and that this was incredibly weird. Specifically you said he was "the only person in the world with no presence on the internet? That alone is unbelievable".
But he did, at a minimum he had a Discord account. So then you shift to, he had no *political* presence on the internet. But this is not abnormal! Most people do not post about politics on the internet, not least because the places you might want to have a conversation quickly get spammed to death by people who pick up some bullshit somewhere and decide they want to amplify it.
I’m simply telling the truth. As per the New York Times. They say that Discord opened his account and found very little activity and nothing political
Are we to believe they’ve lied? Why?
Apart from that Crooks appears to have zero internet impact. Which is very very odd
That’s it. The fact you get so overwrought about this is telling in itself
"They found very little activity and nothing political" is true and not unusual.
Having no presence on the internet, which is what you said earlier, would be unusual, but it wasn't true.
You keep saying things that would be interesting if true, but then once anyone looks into them it turns out they're not true, at which point you silently drop that claim and shift to a new one and the cycle repeats.
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Is there a vacancy? Has no one considered the possibility that Rishi will want to lead the Tories back into government, as Trump is leading the Republicans?
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
I can absolutely believe local LE ware bribed (or threatened) to look the other way.
The shooter having absolutely virtually no internet footprint is a red flag for me that makes me think this is maybe more than a random weird loner.
Random weird loners LOVE posting random shit on the internet. Er, probably.
Either way, they usually don't have zero online footprint before showing up with an AR15 to kill the former and possibly next President. That alone stinks to f*k.
I thought he was active on discord? Why does he have to use anything else?
Discord opened his profile and found almost zero activity and nothing political. Or so they say
You're just constantly shifting from bullshit to bullshit. You said he had no presence on the internet and that this was incredibly weird. Specifically you said he was "the only person in the world with no presence on the internet? That alone is unbelievable".
But he did, at a minimum he had a Discord account. So then you shift to, he had no *political* presence on the internet. But this is not abnormal! Most people do not post about politics on the internet, not least because the places you might want to have a conversation quickly get spammed to death by people who pick up some bullshit somewhere and decide they want to amplify it.
I’m simply telling the truth. As per the New York Times. They say that Discord opened his account and found very little activity and nothing political
Are we to believe they’ve lied? Why?
Apart from that Crooks appears to have zero internet impact. Which is very very odd
That’s it. The fact you get so overwrought about this is telling in itself
"They found very little activity and nothing political" is true and not unusual.
Having no presence on the internet, which is what you said earlier, would be unusual, but it wasn't true.
You keep saying things that would be interesting if true, but then once anyone looks into them it turns out they're not true, at which point you silently drop that claim and shift to a new one and the cycle repeats.
You used to be interesting, albeit detached. Not any more. Bit sad, oh well, move on
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Is there a vacancy? Has no one considered the possibility that Rishi will want to lead the Tories back into government, as Trump is leading the Republicans?
Boris might, Rishi is done politically and will go back to finance or to tech
It is possible Priti could come through the middle but without knowing the complete field, it is hard to be sure where the middle is. Presumable Suella and Tom Tugendhat mark the boundaries but where exactly do Jenrick and Kemi fit in, and will Cleverly stand? If Priti gets through to the members then if she picks up Boris's support she might make it, but around 9/1 is not immediately tempting.
You know things have gone badly wrong when......
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
She's more charismatic than any of the other people in the frame.
Is there a vacancy? Has no one considered the possibility that Rishi will want to lead the Tories back into government, as Trump is leading the Republicans?
The man who faked his own political death.
He could just forget to resign and then casually go about his business for the next four years with no-one in the Tory party too keen to force the issue.
Seattle Times - Top WA Republicans absent from Trump-centered RNC in Milwaukee
For many elected Republican officials around the country, the Republican National Convention is the place to be this week. . . .
But Washington’s elected Republicans are, by and large, noticeably absent.
The state’s two Republican members of Congress, Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Spokane, and Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside, are not attending. With one exception, there are no state legislators with the Washington delegation in Milwaukee this week either.
“I’m it,” said Jim Walsh, the chair of the state Republican Party, who also serves as a state representative from Aberdeen. . . .
Asked about the comparative dearth of elected Washington Republicans in Milwaukee this week, Walsh shrugged: “Time and tide. I don’t know.”
As a delegation, perhaps in part due to its lack of political star power, Washington visibly lacks the clout of more powerful Republican-led states, like Texas and Florida. The delegation’s hotel is some 20 miles northwest of downtown Milwaukee . . . In the convention arena, the Washington delegates are squeezed in the very back and off to the right side of the stage — in between the delegations from North Dakota [!] and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
SSI - Jim Walsh is perhaps the most mega-MAGA-maniac in the WA State legislature - not mean feat!
AND am wondering when the RNC state delegation seating chart was released to the public? Certainly obvious that Doug Burgum of North Dakota was NOT a hot prospect for GOP VP nomination in minds of whomever approved putting his state delegation in the back by the toilets.
Trump says regulations, permitting, and zoning are major impediments to more affordable housing
He ran on this last time as well but then once in office he decided to go with "the democrats want to destroy the suburbs" and it all went out the window.
Hopefully this time he'll be more successfully manipulated by the Peter Thiel people.
Lester Holt: "If you were to have, continue to run and be officially nominated, what happens if you have another episode like we saw during the debate?"
Biden: "What happensuvinimina?"
Holt: "Yeah, what happens if you have another performance on that par, on that level?"
Strange. They can't lose a right they have never had.
Thanks.
Overall this seems very sensible to me. Starmer is disempowering the NIMBYs. This is key "there will be a presumption in favour of development, with local residents able to agree the style of new housing but not object to it getting built."
Strange. They can't lose a right they have never had.
Thanks.
Overall this seems very sensible to me. Starmer is disempowering the NIMBYs. This is key "there will be a presumption in favour of development, with local residents able to agree the style of new housing but not object to it getting built."
Dominic Cummings on the problems he will face.
I know Cummings triggers some people but this is interesting all the same.
"Sloping roof used by assassin ‘too dangerous’ for Secret Service agents
The US Secret Service did not put agents on the rooftop where an assassin shot at Donald Trump for health and safety reasons, the head of the agency has said.
Kimberly Cheatle, the Secret Service director, said the “sloped roof” where Thomas Matthew Crooks was positioned on Saturday could have posed a risk to agents.
“That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,” she told ABC News on Tuesday.
“And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.”"
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
I can absolutely believe local LE ware bribed (or threatened) to look the other way.
The shooter having absolutely virtually no internet footprint is a red flag for me that makes me think this is maybe more than a random weird loner.
Random weird loners LOVE posting random shit on the internet. Er, probably.
Either way, they usually don't have zero online footprint before showing up with an AR15 to kill the former and possibly next President. That alone stinks to f*k.
I thought he was active on discord? Why does he have to use anything else?
Discord opened his profile and found almost zero activity and nothing political. Or so they say
You're just constantly shifting from bullshit to bullshit. You said he had no presence on the internet and that this was incredibly weird. Specifically you said he was "the only person in the world with no presence on the internet? That alone is unbelievable".
But he did, at a minimum he had a Discord account. So then you shift to, he had no *political* presence on the internet. But this is not abnormal! Most people do not post about politics on the internet, not least because the places you might want to have a conversation quickly get spammed to death by people who pick up some bullshit somewhere and decide they want to amplify it.
I’m simply telling the truth. As per the New York Times. They say that Discord opened his account and found very little activity and nothing political
Are we to believe they’ve lied? Why?
Apart from that Crooks appears to have zero internet impact. Which is very very odd
That’s it. The fact you get so overwrought about this is telling in itself
"They found very little activity and nothing political" is true and not unusual.
Having no presence on the internet, which is what you said earlier, would be unusual, but it wasn't true.
You keep saying things that would be interesting if true, but then once anyone looks into them it turns out they're not true, at which point you silently drop that claim and shift to a new one and the cycle repeats.
You used to be interesting, albeit detached. Not any more. Bit sad, oh well, move on
"Sloping roof used by assassin ‘too dangerous’ for Secret Service agents
The US Secret Service did not put agents on the rooftop where an assassin shot at Donald Trump for health and safety reasons, the head of the agency has said.
Kimberly Cheatle, the Secret Service director, said the “sloped roof” where Thomas Matthew Crooks was positioned on Saturday could have posed a risk to agents.
“That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,” she told ABC News on Tuesday.
“And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.”"
These sort of statements are designed to cover the fact they know they fucked up.
Yes, they dd fuck up, but the excuse does make some form of sense. I'd expect the pitch to be quite steep, though.
Usually the reason to keep people off roofs is that they're too weak to be walked upon. Lots of builders have fallen through roofs in the past. I've no idea about the construction of this building, though.
This was, I am tending to believe, a co-ordinated attempt to kill Trump. Far too many things had to go incredibly right for a lone nutter like Crooks to get as far as he did
If that’s the case what’s left is: how high did the co-ordination go. Perhaps it was just low level. A few local cops
After years as a mid level corporate drone, I've learned to never ascribe to malice what can easily be attributed to sheer incompetence. Several competing government agencies securing a perimeter with differing chains of command would fall into this category.
Though I wouldn't rule out the idea that low level officals could be bribed, either. Local LE responsible for securing that particular roof? Much easier to be got at than a secret service detachment.
Plus if the secret service sniper had eyes on the target (they neutralised him within a couple of seconds of him opening fire) you could guess they couldn't get authorisation to open fire or confirmation that the sniper wasn't local LE before then.
Incompetence first, with the possibility of a corrupt local LE on top. But as always, Occam's razor.
Occam’s razor says, to me, a low level local conspiracy
The problem with all conspiracy theories is that they all require an extraordinary level of complicity and planning by large numbers of people, who then have to keep omerta that is tighter than any mafiosa.
Even if PC Plod wanted Trump dead, how could he be sure his mates did too?, and why would the centrepiece be an inexperience 20 year old who works as a diet assistant in a care home?
No, they don’t. They need a few local cops looking away at the right time, and an inept seekyservs stuffed with tiny inexperienced women. Voila
That isn't a conspiracy it is just incompetence.
It's not even that incompetent it's just America.
Something there have been assassination attempts against more than a third of all US Presidents.
There are school shootings and other shootings on a far too routine basis. The Secret Service can only do so much, when everyone has east access to guns.
Strange. They can't lose a right they have never had.
Thanks.
Overall this seems very sensible to me. Starmer is disempowering the NIMBYs. This is key "there will be a presumption in favour of development, with local residents able to agree the style of new housing but not object to it getting built."
The Cons did some good stuff on housebuilding (up 50%-100% iirc), but it was all tactical, and one of their Hail Mary passes was to burn down local housing targets.
As I see it, Starmer is seeking to remove the foot dragging opportunities such as taking 10 or more years to get a Local Plan in place - which is a plan to meet the housing target, and bulldoze through local politics. He can't do a @BartholomewRoberts "scorched earth the planning system", as the country won't accept it and it would not deliver quality.
IMO he'll streamline the local plan process, and make doing it rapidly a "do it or else" thing with effective remedies. These will imo involve the Planning Inspectorate, who are good, and bound by law and policy not local politics - which is why Nimbies hate them.
A past straw in the wind was a "presumption in favour of development if no approved plan in place" around 2010-2015 before it was blunted. That allowed development, but it was piece by piece controlled by what applications developers made - I got one through at that time on family land. That meant that local politicians could slope shoulders on taking responsibility; that culture needs to die to meet his objectives. He'll seek to systematise it in a way that will stymie parish pump politics.
The difficult stuff is that it has to work with capacity building and ensuring quality, where Building Control departments have been slashed like everything else. His 300k per annum target is also tough, unless they have done some sweet data analysis on the blocked pipeline, because even at pace it will be 1-2 years to start anything moving in quantity. Unlike Mr Corbyn who promised Golden Calves I think they have an idea what they are doing.
There will be big fights with LD MPs in the South, and bodies such as the CPRE.
He will need to do Greybelt (ie brownfield sites in the Greenbelt), and high density urban build. Me, I'd take a couple of big London Council Estates, and turn them very high density developments - say double the Barbican density to give London capacity.
He also needs to get the Planning Gain tax arrangements right, to allow good but smallish windfalls to landowners, as he needs so much more money. It will be really interesting to see if the use of CPO at agricultural value plus a defined premium is done, and how Councils will get the skills / capacity to manage it.
It's all one to watch, which has potential to blow up their reputation in some places.
It's a lot of balls to juggle and get right.
My take on the Times is that they are just stirring.
A really good graphic video depicting the events in Butler, PA last Saturday, summarising everything we know at this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVA7aXOH1pk (6’ long, contains a warning at the start about graphic images, but contains nothing more graphic than images of Trump with blood on his head).
Meanwhile, attendees at the RNC in Milwaukee are describing a security Hell, with various groups of police unsure about which passes are valid for which areas. Because posting a sign at each checkpoint with a list of valid passes, as at every music concert you’ve ever been to, appears to be too difficult for them. Sounds horribly familiar.
Strange. They can't lose a right they have never had.
Thanks.
Overall this seems very sensible to me. Starmer is disempowering the NIMBYs. This is key "there will be a presumption in favour of development, with local residents able to agree the style of new housing but not object to it getting built."
Dominic Cummings on the problems he will face.
I know Cummings triggers some people but this is interesting all the same.
What @Malmesbury, @BartholomewRoberts, and occasionally myself, have been saying for years. You can’t just make planning easier by passing a Planning Bill, without getting rid of a whole load of other existing legislation first.
Strange. They can't lose a right they have never had.
Thanks.
Overall this seems very sensible to me. Starmer is disempowering the NIMBYs. This is key "there will be a presumption in favour of development, with local residents able to agree the style of new housing but not object to it getting built."
Dominic Cummings on the problems he will face.
I know Cummings triggers some people but this is interesting all the same.
What @Malmesbury, @BartholomewRoberts, and occasionally myself, have been saying for years. You can’t just make planning easier by passing a Planning Bill, without getting rid of a whole load of other existing legislation first.
Didn’t he just ignore them all and build his new house anyway?
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
In fact, you could argue that Trump has already been disastrous for Ukraine. His anti-Ukraine rhetoric has led to large parts of MAGA and the USA being anti-Ukraine, and that has not aided Biden. Imagine if Trump had come out in 2022 thoroughly in support of Ukraine, and the American right had been criticising Biden for not doing enough, rather than doing too much.
I am pretty sure that I have never been able to take large amounts of sugary food without unpleasant consequences. Tests at younger age showed blood sugar normal. Suspect Pancreas was always a bit weak but with ageing it got worse.
Incidentally over the years I have built up a spreadsheet of daily fasting readings, taken first thing after getting out of bed. These with a formula (using 90 days readings) enable me to forecast HBa1C remarkably accurately, to within a point or two of the official reading. Poor eating dosent have an immediate effect (other than a next day spike if late in the day) but you see a trend change start two or three days later.
It also (when I was deemed pre diabetic) was what got me diagnosed when the fasting went up too much so I sent a message to them with recent fasting results and said "I think you had better do something about this"
With the hullabaloo about how the Trump shooting must be a conspiracy and all that, surely there is a simple conclusion: Trump should have armed himself.
This is AMERICA, right wing America. True Americans carry guns. If Trump was doing his speech with an AR15 slung on his back he could have personally defended himself.
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
In fact, you could argue that Trump has already been disastrous for Ukraine. His anti-Ukraine rhetoric has led to large parts of MAGA and the USA being anti-Ukraine, and that has not aided Biden. Imagine if Trump had come out in 2022 thoroughly in support of Ukraine, and the American right had been criticising Biden for not doing enough, rather than doing too much.
Trump is just generally disastrous.
He blew up the companies his father had founded.
He screwed over thousands of investors.
He meddled endlessly with the legal system to the extent you could argue America doesn’t really have one any more.
He keeps getting caught committing various crimes because he can’t carry out simple bribery effectively.
He nearly sparked a nuclear war via a series of ill advised tweets.
He signed a deal to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban in the apparent belief he was doing the opposite.
He tried to rig an election and failed because he didn’t understand the processes involved.
He led Putin to believe America had given up on Europe, emboldening his forays in cyber warfare and ultimately leading to Ukraine.
When a pandemic hit he argued against preventive measures and vaccines instead urging people to drink disinfectant and sheep worming medicine.
Plus, he’s a serial failure as a husband.
He can’t get anything right at all. He’s only where he is because of vast inherited wealth and the complicity of certain officials in various frauds.
With the hullabaloo about how the Trump shooting must be a conspiracy and all that, surely there is a simple conclusion: Trump should have armed himself.
This is AMERICA, right wing America. True Americans carry guns. If Trump was doing his speech with an AR15 slung on his back he could have personally defended himself.
This is the failure. Not enough guns.
There is a slight irony that Trump’s proposed solution to school shootings was to arm teachers as a deterrent, and yet while he was surrounded by dozens of men with guns he got shot at himself.
I am pretty sure that I have never been able to take large amounts of sugary food without unpleasant consequences. Tests at younger age showed blood sugar normal. Suspect Pancreas was always a bit weak but with ageing it got worse.
Incidentally over the years I have built up a spreadsheet of daily fasting readings, taken first thing after getting out of bed. These with a formula (using 90 days readings) enable me to forecast HBa1C remarkably accurately, to within a point or two of the official reading. Poor eating dosent have an immediate effect (other than a next day spike if late in the day) but you see a trend change start two or three days later.
It also (when I was deemed pre diabetic) was what got me diagnosed when the fasting went up too much so I sent a message to them with recent fasting results and said "I think you had better do something about this"
Yes, fasting blood sugar done like this is a pretty good indicator of HbA1c.
The advantage of a CGM is it's rapid feedback. Too much dietary advice for diabetes makes assumptions that people live regular patterns to their day, eating at set times, having control of what foods are available, and exercising a regular amount. We don't live in a 1960s suburban sitcom lifestyle though, and I suspect few ever did. Combined with a DAFNE approach and a CGM people can have good control with a normal modern lifestyle.
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
In fact, you could argue that Trump has already been disastrous for Ukraine. His anti-Ukraine rhetoric has led to large parts of MAGA and the USA being anti-Ukraine, and that has not aided Biden. Imagine if Trump had come out in 2022 thoroughly in support of Ukraine, and the American right had been criticising Biden for not doing enough, rather than doing too much.
Trump is just generally disastrous.
He blew up the companies his father had founded.
He screwed over thousands of investors.
He meddled endlessly with the legal system to the extent you could argue America doesn’t really have one any more.
He keeps getting caught committing various crimes because he can’t carry out simple bribery effectively.
He nearly sparked a nuclear war via a series of ill advised tweets.
He signed a deal to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban in the apparent belief he was doing the opposite.
He tried to rig an election and failed because he didn’t understand the processes involved.
He led Putin to believe America had given up on Europe, emboldening his forays in cyber warfare and ultimately leading to Ukraine.
When a pandemic hit he argued against preventive measures and vaccines instead urging people to drink disinfectant and sheep worming medicine.
Plus, he’s a serial failure as a husband.
He can’t get anything right at all. He’s only where he is because of vast inherited wealth and the complicity of certain officials in various frauds.
I think this is probably largely a work of fiction. 'Drink disinfectant' certainly is. Trump basically sends his opponents barmy.
I am pretty sure that I have never been able to take large amounts of sugary food without unpleasant consequences. Tests at younger age showed blood sugar normal. Suspect Pancreas was always a bit weak but with ageing it got worse.
Incidentally over the years I have built up a spreadsheet of daily fasting readings, taken first thing after getting out of bed. These with a formula (using 90 days readings) enable me to forecast HBa1C remarkably accurately, to within a point or two of the official reading. Poor eating dosent have an immediate effect (other than a next day spike if late in the day) but you see a trend change start two or three days later.
It also (when I was deemed pre diabetic) was what got me diagnosed when the fasting went up too much so I sent a message to them with recent fasting results and said "I think you had better do something about this"
Thanks for your reply. Type I or Type II alike are horrible journeys to have to be on. But I like the old saw "I am on a journey - starting from here." It seems to be one of those things where less than expected seems to be achieved in the short-term, say 3-6 months, but look back in 2 or 5 years and more than expected changes.
One of my first shocks was that the understanding was that "your life expectancy is now 10-15 years less", which for one thing affected my pension planning.
But we all need our own adaptations, and to find ways to incorporate them. It could be a return to walking holidays - eg the Pennine Way, and a local ramblers group, or walking a new dog. I have one friend who got herself an extra 3-4 years of being pre-diabetic substantially by cutting out weekday beer, traditional chips, getting an air fryer, and a new lot of dogs. Equally something as simple as taking up bowls or cycling or regular walking can make a hell of a difference to general fitness, and even more so once we get into our late 60s or 70s or later.
Personally one thing I am looking at is getting involved in volunteering no the Ramblers Path Check setup - which are local teams of volunteers who walk all the public rights of way once a year to make sure they stay open, and report on problems to the Highways Authority.
The devil, as always. will be in the detail. I doubt they're going to be buying out Stagecoach, Arriva or First. But I doubt they'll do much to improve services, especially outside conurbations.
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
In fact, you could argue that Trump has already been disastrous for Ukraine. His anti-Ukraine rhetoric has led to large parts of MAGA and the USA being anti-Ukraine, and that has not aided Biden. Imagine if Trump had come out in 2022 thoroughly in support of Ukraine, and the American right had been criticising Biden for not doing enough, rather than doing too much.
Trump is just generally disastrous.
He blew up the companies his father had founded.
He screwed over thousands of investors.
He meddled endlessly with the legal system to the extent you could argue America doesn’t really have one any more.
He keeps getting caught committing various crimes because he can’t carry out simple bribery effectively.
He nearly sparked a nuclear war via a series of ill advised tweets.
He signed a deal to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban in the apparent belief he was doing the opposite.
He tried to rig an election and failed because he didn’t understand the processes involved.
He led Putin to believe America had given up on Europe, emboldening his forays in cyber warfare and ultimately leading to Ukraine.
When a pandemic hit he argued against preventive measures and vaccines instead urging people to drink disinfectant and sheep worming medicine.
Plus, he’s a serial failure as a husband.
He can’t get anything right at all. He’s only where he is because of vast inherited wealth and the complicity of certain officials in various frauds.
And yet, he's been US President once, and is on track to do so again. And that's not just because the Democrats have struggled to beat him.
Strange. They can't lose a right they have never had.
Thanks.
Overall this seems very sensible to me. Starmer is disempowering the NIMBYs. This is key "there will be a presumption in favour of development, with local residents able to agree the style of new housing but not object to it getting built."
Dominic Cummings on the problems he will face.
I know Cummings triggers some people but this is interesting all the same.
What @Malmesbury, @BartholomewRoberts, and occasionally myself, have been saying for years. You can’t just make planning easier by passing a Planning Bill, without getting rid of a whole load of other existing legislation first.
And they are doing quite the opposite:
"Labour could introduce a new “office for health responsibility” as part of efforts to block policies that could harm the public’s health, one of its advisers has said.
Paul Corrigan, a former adviser to Sir Tony Blair, who has just been appointed to advise the Health Secretary Wes Streeting, said Sir Keir Starmer would make health the responsibility of all Government departments."
The devil, as always. will be in the detail. I doubt they're going to be buying out Stagecoach, Arriva or First. But I doubt they'll do much to improve services, especially outside conurbations.
I suspect services, not necessarily operators. Significant numbers of bus services only operate with public money anyway, they aren’t commercial.
Have the operating right under public control and offer concessions to operate them. As opposed to Stagecoach etc increasingly taking the public cash, told to run a service and then scrapping it
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
In fact, you could argue that Trump has already been disastrous for Ukraine. His anti-Ukraine rhetoric has led to large parts of MAGA and the USA being anti-Ukraine, and that has not aided Biden. Imagine if Trump had come out in 2022 thoroughly in support of Ukraine, and the American right had been criticising Biden for not doing enough, rather than doing too much.
Trump is just generally disastrous.
He blew up the companies his father had founded.
He screwed over thousands of investors.
He meddled endlessly with the legal system to the extent you could argue America doesn’t really have one any more.
He keeps getting caught committing various crimes because he can’t carry out simple bribery effectively.
He nearly sparked a nuclear war via a series of ill advised tweets.
He signed a deal to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban in the apparent belief he was doing the opposite.
He tried to rig an election and failed because he didn’t understand the processes involved.
He led Putin to believe America had given up on Europe, emboldening his forays in cyber warfare and ultimately leading to Ukraine.
When a pandemic hit he argued against preventive measures and vaccines instead urging people to drink disinfectant and sheep worming medicine.
Plus, he’s a serial failure as a husband.
He can’t get anything right at all. He’s only where he is because of vast inherited wealth and the complicity of certain officials in various frauds.
I think this is probably largely a work of fiction. 'Drink disinfectant' certainly is. Trump basically sends his opponents barmy.
He didn’t quite say “drink disinfectant”. He said:
“A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”
Which, to be generous, is ill-informed babble but no, not telling people to drink disinfectant.
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
In fact, you could argue that Trump has already been disastrous for Ukraine. His anti-Ukraine rhetoric has led to large parts of MAGA and the USA being anti-Ukraine, and that has not aided Biden. Imagine if Trump had come out in 2022 thoroughly in support of Ukraine, and the American right had been criticising Biden for not doing enough, rather than doing too much.
Trump is just generally disastrous.
He blew up the companies his father had founded.
He screwed over thousands of investors.
He meddled endlessly with the legal system to the extent you could argue America doesn’t really have one any more.
He keeps getting caught committing various crimes because he can’t carry out simple bribery effectively.
He nearly sparked a nuclear war via a series of ill advised tweets.
He signed a deal to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban in the apparent belief he was doing the opposite.
He tried to rig an election and failed because he didn’t understand the processes involved.
He led Putin to believe America had given up on Europe, emboldening his forays in cyber warfare and ultimately leading to Ukraine.
When a pandemic hit he argued against preventive measures and vaccines instead urging people to drink disinfectant and sheep worming medicine.
Plus, he’s a serial failure as a husband.
He can’t get anything right at all. He’s only where he is because of vast inherited wealth and the complicity of certain officials in various frauds.
And yet, he's been US President once, and is on track to do so again. And that's not just because the Democrats have struggled to beat him.
He's been a lucky crook - very lucky in the assassination attempt, a scratch on the ear for a boost in the polls.
I am pretty sure that I have never been able to take large amounts of sugary food without unpleasant consequences. Tests at younger age showed blood sugar normal. Suspect Pancreas was always a bit weak but with ageing it got worse.
Incidentally over the years I have built up a spreadsheet of daily fasting readings, taken first thing after getting out of bed. These with a formula (using 90 days readings) enable me to forecast HBa1C remarkably accurately, to within a point or two of the official reading. Poor eating dosent have an immediate effect (other than a next day spike if late in the day) but you see a trend change start two or three days later.
It also (when I was deemed pre diabetic) was what got me diagnosed when the fasting went up too much so I sent a message to them with recent fasting results and said "I think you had better do something about this"
Yes, fasting blood sugar done like this is a pretty good indicator of HbA1c.
The advantage of a CGM is it's rapid feedback. Too much dietary advice for diabetes makes assumptions that people live regular patterns to their day, eating at set times, having control of what foods are available, and exercising a regular amount. We don't live in a 1960s suburban sitcom lifestyle though, and I suspect few ever did. Combined with a DAFNE approach and a CGM people can have good control with a normal modern lifestyle.
I am pretty sure that I have never been able to take large amounts of sugary food without unpleasant consequences. Tests at younger age showed blood sugar normal. Suspect Pancreas was always a bit weak but with ageing it got worse.
Incidentally over the years I have built up a spreadsheet of daily fasting readings, taken first thing after getting out of bed. These with a formula (using 90 days readings) enable me to forecast HBa1C remarkably accurately, to within a point or two of the official reading. Poor eating dosent have an immediate effect (other than a next day spike if late in the day) but you see a trend change start two or three days later.
It also (when I was deemed pre diabetic) was what got me diagnosed when the fasting went up too much so I sent a message to them with recent fasting results and said "I think you had better do something about this"
One thing that you may be able to do is access a Diabetes orientated nurse at your GP, which is one of the major developments over the last decade or two.
If you are thoughtful and interested in improving your condition, they would normally be quite happy to spend some time with you or talking on the phone. If you explain what you are trying to achieve in practice, specialist nurses are often a far better resource than Doctors, because they have a far more constant contact with the daily practicalities.
Another option is online or charitable resources. I learnt my stuff from the Insulin Pumpers group I mentioned yesterday - back in 2001 it was an email list running at a couple of hundred messages a day with lots of experienced people on there. Like you, my first job when I got a downloadable meter was to develop an SS to predict HBA1c, which is now a standard KPI in my CGM system.
My occasional advice to new Type Is is to geek out on diabetes education for the first year, to not be apologetic about the need to do so, and to get into an immediate, uncompromising habit of being public about treatment. At that time some went "ugh" when seeing insulin jabs at a restaurant table, and had a view that it should be hidden or done in a toilet. When I was diagnosed I just told my employer I needed 6 weeks off to come to terms, and they let me do it; if they hadn't I would have resigned on the spot.
I'll stop there, but do let us know how you get on say at this point next next year .
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
In fact, you could argue that Trump has already been disastrous for Ukraine. His anti-Ukraine rhetoric has led to large parts of MAGA and the USA being anti-Ukraine, and that has not aided Biden. Imagine if Trump had come out in 2022 thoroughly in support of Ukraine, and the American right had been criticising Biden for not doing enough, rather than doing too much.
Trump is just generally disastrous.
He blew up the companies his father had founded.
He screwed over thousands of investors.
He meddled endlessly with the legal system to the extent you could argue America doesn’t really have one any more.
He keeps getting caught committing various crimes because he can’t carry out simple bribery effectively.
He nearly sparked a nuclear war via a series of ill advised tweets.
He signed a deal to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban in the apparent belief he was doing the opposite.
He tried to rig an election and failed because he didn’t understand the processes involved.
He led Putin to believe America had given up on Europe, emboldening his forays in cyber warfare and ultimately leading to Ukraine.
When a pandemic hit he argued against preventive measures and vaccines instead urging people to drink disinfectant and sheep worming medicine.
Plus, he’s a serial failure as a husband.
He can’t get anything right at all. He’s only where he is because of vast inherited wealth and the complicity of certain officials in various frauds.
I think this is probably largely a work of fiction. 'Drink disinfectant' certainly is. Trump basically sends his opponents barmy.
He didn’t quite say “drink disinfectant”. He said:
“A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”
Which, to be generous, is ill-informed babble but no, not telling people to drink disinfectant.
It is babble, but it's not particularly ill-informed. It's a babble of ideas that's more like a businessman than a politician speaking. Politicians like Nicola Sturgeon (and posters like the above) surreptitiously swapping 'injest' for 'inject' were mischeif-making, and by condemning the suggestion of 'injesting bleach' added more danger than there ever was in Trump's initial words.
The devil, as always. will be in the detail. I doubt they're going to be buying out Stagecoach, Arriva or First. But I doubt they'll do much to improve services, especially outside conurbations.
I suspect services, not necessarily operators. Significant numbers of bus services only operate with public money anyway, they aren’t commercial.
Have the operating right under public control and offer concessions to operate them. As opposed to Stagecoach etc increasingly taking the public cash, told to run a service and then scrapping it
Might be different in Scotland, but in England it's mostly the other way. Councils don't have to subsidise bus services, so it's one of the things that has got cut to feed the gaping maw that is social care. So the profitable frequent core is fine, but the marginal stuff has been lopped off the network map.
Devil will be in the detail, but it could be a slight misreporting of a plan to simplify and extend the franchising that's happening in Manchester.
The devil, as always. will be in the detail. I doubt they're going to be buying out Stagecoach, Arriva or First. But I doubt they'll do much to improve services, especially outside conurbations.
I think that's just poor writing - the BBC report qualifies it lower down - and the Guardian has this: ...The buses bill will give local leaders greater powers to launch publicly owned bus services...
Don't wind yourselves up until they actually publish their bills.
The devil, as always. will be in the detail. I doubt they're going to be buying out Stagecoach, Arriva or First. But I doubt they'll do much to improve services, especially outside conurbations.
I suspect services, not necessarily operators. Significant numbers of bus services only operate with public money anyway, they aren’t commercial.
Have the operating right under public control and offer concessions to operate them. As opposed to Stagecoach etc increasingly taking the public cash, told to run a service and then scrapping it
AIUI, that's what often happens with many services already, especially in rural areas.
But may I remind you the one part of the railways that are failing are not the TOCs. It's the DfT. I'd like to know how more centralisation (presumably away from councils as well as the operators) would work, given the experience of the railways.
What seems to be the case is that they're tending to resist gesture politics, for now.
..Other long-held Labour policies have not made the cut, including the party’s promise to bring the voting age down to 16.
Government insiders said they remained committed to the proposal but that bills to help drive economic growth were the priority this time round. One source suggested that voting age changes could wait until closer to the next election, prompting speculation that the plan may never happen at all...
It doesn’t talk of a full scale invasion. An incursion into one of the weaker members, after the US says it’s going to sit out any European conflicts, is just the kind of gamble Putin is capable of.
What does sitting it out look like in practice?
Would they close their embassy and pull everyone out? Would they ban that country from using US weapons to retaliate against Russia? Would they announce that the government probably has only a few days left in power?
In other words would they treat them like Joe Biden treated Ukraine?
Pathetic. Is that the best you can do?
Trump/Vance have made clear that they support Putin carving up Ukraine. Biden is supporting Ukraine with vast amounts of military equipment.
You can say ice is hot, water is dry and butterflies taste of peppermint, but it is clear that the Ukrainians will be praying night and day for a Biden win.
Do you think that another 4 years of Biden's policy of giving Ukraine just enough to keep the front line roughly where it is but not enough to defeat Russia would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think 4 years of Trump/Vance not giving Ukraine anything and supporting Putin's annexation of territory would be a good outcome for Ukraine?
Do you think that the US is electing a world dictator and Trump would coerce every other potential ally of Ukraine into doing nothing to help?
That's your best non sequitur of the day. Biden has and will do more for Ukraine than Trump/Vance. The Ukrainians know that. The Americans know that. Most of us here know that. You keep denying it. Why?
You are in denial about the fact that Biden has also done negative things for Ukriane, both in terms of errors of omission and errors of commission.
He failed to deter Russia from invading in the first place (having met Putin in a summit meeting) and he actively prevented Ukraine from retaliating against Russian targets inside Russian territory out of fear of escalation.
Maybe Biden was right and he made every call perfectly and the situation today is as good as it could possibly have been for Ukraine, but I seriously doubt it.
The question at hand is not whether Biden has been perfect. The very obvious fact that you refuse to engage with is that Trump/Vance would be disastrous for Ukraine.
In fact, you could argue that Trump has already been disastrous for Ukraine. His anti-Ukraine rhetoric has led to large parts of MAGA and the USA being anti-Ukraine, and that has not aided Biden. Imagine if Trump had come out in 2022 thoroughly in support of Ukraine, and the American right had been criticising Biden for not doing enough, rather than doing too much.
Trump is just generally disastrous.
He blew up the companies his father had founded.
He screwed over thousands of investors.
He meddled endlessly with the legal system to the extent you could argue America doesn’t really have one any more.
He keeps getting caught committing various crimes because he can’t carry out simple bribery effectively.
He nearly sparked a nuclear war via a series of ill advised tweets.
He signed a deal to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban in the apparent belief he was doing the opposite.
He tried to rig an election and failed because he didn’t understand the processes involved.
He led Putin to believe America had given up on Europe, emboldening his forays in cyber warfare and ultimately leading to Ukraine.
When a pandemic hit he argued against preventive measures and vaccines instead urging people to drink disinfectant and sheep worming medicine.
Plus, he’s a serial failure as a husband.
He can’t get anything right at all. He’s only where he is because of vast inherited wealth and the complicity of certain officials in various frauds.
I think this is probably largely a work of fiction. 'Drink disinfectant' certainly is. Trump basically sends his opponents barmy.
He didn’t quite say “drink disinfectant”. He said:
“A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”
Which, to be generous, is ill-informed babble but no, not telling people to drink disinfectant.
I am pretty sure that I have never been able to take large amounts of sugary food without unpleasant consequences. Tests at younger age showed blood sugar normal. Suspect Pancreas was always a bit weak but with ageing it got worse.
Incidentally over the years I have built up a spreadsheet of daily fasting readings, taken first thing after getting out of bed. These with a formula (using 90 days readings) enable me to forecast HBa1C remarkably accurately, to within a point or two of the official reading. Poor eating dosent have an immediate effect (other than a next day spike if late in the day) but you see a trend change start two or three days later.
It also (when I was deemed pre diabetic) was what got me diagnosed when the fasting went up too much so I sent a message to them with recent fasting results and said "I think you had better do something about this"
Thanks for your reply. Type I or Type II alike are horrible journeys to have to be on. But I like the old saw "I am on a journey - starting from here." It seems to be one of those things where less than expected seems to be achieved in the short-term, say 3-6 months, but look back in 2 or 5 years and more than expected changes.
One of my first shocks was that the understanding was that "your life expectancy is now 10-15 years less", which for one thing affected my pension planning.
But we all need our own adaptations, and to find ways to incorporate them. It could be a return to walking holidays - eg the Pennine Way, and a local ramblers group, or walking a new dog. I have one friend who got herself an extra 3-4 years of being pre-diabetic substantially by cutting out weekday beer, traditional chips, getting an air fryer, and a new lot of dogs. Equally something as simple as taking up bowls or cycling or regular walking can make a hell of a difference to general fitness, and even more so once we get into our late 60s or 70s or later.
Personally one thing I am looking at is getting involved in volunteering no the Ramblers Path Check setup - which are local teams of volunteers who walk all the public rights of way once a year to make sure they stay open, and report on problems to the Highways Authority.
Anyway - really wishing you all the best.
Exercise makes a massive difference. One of my patients with indifferent control worked in a warehouse on shifts (shifts really disrupt diabetic routines) several miles from his home. His car broke down and he couldnt afford the repair, and there was a poor bus system so he walked each way for an hour a day in all weather's. Within 6 months and doing no other changed he lost 10 Kg and his HbA1c dropped significantly, so he kept it up even when he could afford the repair. Building exercise into routine works better than gyms imo, particularly my assistant Dr Dog.
The life expectancy reduction with diabetes is quite sobering, particularly now we see Type 2 even in kids. The figure is 14 years at age 30, 6 years reduction at 50:
This is an average figure, and for any individual there is a range depending on control and other related risk factors. With the ideal approach normal life expectancy is well within reach, sadly balanced by a number of my patients who don't or cannot control their blood sugar, very often because of psychological issues.
The devil, as always. will be in the detail. I doubt they're going to be buying out Stagecoach, Arriva or First. But I doubt they'll do much to improve services, especially outside conurbations.
Comments
Nick Fuentes:
“J.D. Vance also has an Indian wife and a kid named Vivek. All his kids have Indian names—so it’s like, what exactly are we getting here? And that’s not a dig at him just because I’m a racist or something. But who is this guy really?”
https://x.com/IsaacDovere/status/1813237902739931455
I can make an analogy with Type I. I was diagnosed Type I in my early 30s in 2001 (~65,000 insulin injections since), and I am now in my 50s just getting my first whiff of complications needing treatment - a bit of retinopathy (eyes).
Depending on control, that could have been after 10 years or 30+ years. Theresa May (diagnosed at 56) or Lindsay Hoyle (diagnosed at 63) won't have that problem as they will probably have popped their clogs by the time complications arrive.
OTOH a child diagnosed at the age of 3, like Victoria Atkins MP, has a greater need for top control throughout. I know people who have been functionally blind by their early 20s, as a result of poor control.
For type 2, back in 2000 it was usually 6-7 years before the condition was caught, sometimes because a complication was noticed. That I think has now improved dramatically with better monitoring (data - @Foxy ?).
Every bit gained now makes a big difference later. So keep doing what you can
Personally I try to have a list of good habits and make them practices - but maintaining motivation on a complex routine all day every day for decades is the really tough one, just the effort to stay interested. One good one is to swap milk chocolate with high quality dark chocolate with less sugar. It all helps but I'm not as disciplined as @BartholomewRoberts on his recent weight-loss programme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/16/priti-patel-kemi-badenoch-braverman-mordaunt-tugendhat/
This is not acquired pb knowledge but there is a large faction of hard right republicans that think post-sassytempt Trump has already gone soft and Vance is further proof that they’re moving to the centre
When the secret service director says they didn't put someone on the roof because it was sloping and therefore dangerous, I can very much believe her.
https://x.com/theJeremyVine/status/1813287381879169316
Trump is widely disliked by a lot of cops and soldiers
2. Son being bullied at school for being so conservative.
3. Son tries to shoot his fathers God figure
4. Son has profile of school shooter
5. Son was pressured by father to be a conservative instead of being like his friends thus bringing ridicule by his classmates.
6. Son’s motive was getting back at his father by taking out his father’s God figure.
Simple, no conspiracy needed.
https://x.com/RobertTCornwell/status/1813276626198638710?t=M2hwDj7uB_7FtI8s7wz0vg&s=09
For example, people have pored over the question of whether Hal Finney is Satoshi Nakamoto (the inventor of Bitcoin) by comparing their writing styles - down to the use of commas - on various internet forums.
Now with AI that written data can be trawled and matches found relatively easily. I assume the government knows exactly who I am on this anonymous tiny corner of the web because they can match my writing style 100% with my gmail account.
Similarly people who don't use social media. At 20, even if you don't use it, all your friends do. There are AI search engines out there that use the same recognition technology as passport control to find matching images of you, say here - https://pimeyes.com/en
The above search engine is able to take a passport photo of you and work out, say, if you uploaded a semi-occluded image of yourself in a dogging nightspot having it away with some random bird in a car park ten years ago.
That is the level AI tech is at now. On the internet, assume *nothing* is anonymous.
Priti Patel is acknowledged as your middle of the road, unity candidate.
In time a lot will require insulin, but this shouldn't be seen as failure, and indeed a lot of the language used adds to the psychological damage as if it is all down to sloth, gluttony and lack of moral fibre. People need support rather than criticism.
CGM are increasingly being rolled out to type 2 subgroups, though in general best for insulin users.
https://x.com/MarkHamill/status/1813284272293486767
AFAICS it's the RCP, not NHS management.
A touch virtue-signally perhaps, but not much of a concern.
But he did, at a minimum he had a Discord account. So then you shift to, he had no *political* presence on the internet. But this is not abnormal! Most people do not post about politics on the internet, not least because the places you might want to have a conversation quickly get spammed to death by people who pick up some bullshit somewhere and decide they want to amplify it.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ukusersfreestylelibre
Back in the late 1990s lucky Type Is with an innovative clinic would get a CGM from a hospital clinic for a week to help understand how blood sugars reacted in their own life. Here's an account from a chap called John Davis from Insulin Pumpers UK from July 2000; he is (or was?) a key activist in getting the therapy into the UK. The surprise at the extra information is stark.
At that time we did up to about 4 blood tests a day, so lost all the fine detail, though some GPs were very reluctant to give out many test strips. I fortunately always had GPs who did as they were told, and accepted that I needed enough test strips to do 6 per day.
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org.uk/cgmsexperience/
But The Gods of The Copybook Headings have woken up.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man—
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:—
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
Are we to believe they’ve lied? Why?
Apart from that Crooks appears to have zero internet impact. Which is very very odd
That’s it. The fact you get so overwrought about this is telling in itself
At that point her pain was under control, she was perfectly capable of all kinds of things. And made jokes and laughed at them - I recall that a very senior medical ethics chap argued that the capacity to understand and enjoy humour was a key indicator of quality of life (internal laughter at least, since some cannot physically laugh).
So we all went to chat with the head shed on duty. She was defensive - claiming that since death was inevitable it was better it came now, rather than wasting resources.
I explained my view of the matter. Interestingly, the staple of Victorian melodrama, “the hands rushing to the throat, protectively”, is true for some people.
OMG
Lester Holt: "If you were to have, continue to run and be officially nominated, what happens if you have another episode like we saw during the debate?"
Biden: "What happensuvinimina?"
Holt: "Yeah, what happens if you have another performance on that par, on that level?"
Biden: "I don't planon havenumenemanav...."
https://x.com/justin_hart/status/1813229374696833430?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Having no presence on the internet, which is what you said earlier, would be unusual, but it wasn't true.
You keep saying things that would be interesting if true, but then once anyone looks into them it turns out they're not true, at which point you silently drop that claim and shift to a new one and the cycle repeats.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cml2w8knjryo
The government said it intends to be ‘robust’ with any local authority failing implementing the new rules in a timely manner
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kings-speech-local-residents-will-lose-right-to-block-housebuilding-5z2crdcr0 (£££)
He could just forget to resign and then casually go about his business for the next four years with no-one in the Tory party too keen to force the issue.
For many elected Republican officials around the country, the Republican National Convention is the place to be this week. . . .
But Washington’s elected Republicans are, by and large, noticeably absent.
The state’s two Republican members of Congress, Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Spokane, and Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside, are not attending. With one exception, there are no state legislators with the Washington delegation in Milwaukee this week either.
“I’m it,” said Jim Walsh, the chair of the state Republican Party, who also serves as a state representative from Aberdeen. . . .
Asked about the comparative dearth of elected Washington Republicans in Milwaukee this week, Walsh shrugged: “Time and tide. I don’t know.”
As a delegation, perhaps in part due to its lack of political star power, Washington visibly lacks the clout of more powerful Republican-led states, like Texas and Florida. The delegation’s hotel is some 20 miles northwest of downtown Milwaukee . . . In the convention arena, the Washington delegates are squeezed in the very back and off to the right side of the stage — in between the delegations from North Dakota [!] and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
SSI - Jim Walsh is perhaps the most mega-MAGA-maniac in the WA State legislature - not mean feat!
AND am wondering when the RNC state delegation seating chart was released to the public? Certainly obvious that Doug Burgum of North Dakota was NOT a hot prospect for GOP VP nomination in minds of whomever approved putting his state delegation in the back by the toilets.
https://archive.ph/7m0VE
Strange. They can't lose a right they have never had.
https://x.com/thestalwart/status/1813371282525720700
Trump says regulations, permitting, and zoning are major impediments to more affordable housing
Hopefully this time he'll be more successfully manipulated by the Peter Thiel people.
Overall this seems very sensible to me. Starmer is disempowering the NIMBYs.
This is key "there will be a presumption in favour of development, with local residents able to agree the style of new housing but not object to it getting built."
I know Cummings triggers some people but this is interesting all the same.
https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1813312984967442816?s=61
Usually the reason to keep people off roofs is that they're too weak to be walked upon. Lots of builders have fallen through roofs in the past. I've no idea about the construction of this building, though.
Something there have been assassination attempts against more than a third of all US Presidents.
There are school shootings and other shootings on a far too routine basis. The Secret Service can only do so much, when everyone has east access to guns.
As I see it, Starmer is seeking to remove the foot dragging opportunities such as taking 10 or more years to get a Local Plan in place - which is a plan to meet the housing target, and bulldoze through local politics. He can't do a @BartholomewRoberts "scorched earth the planning system", as the country won't accept it and it would not deliver quality.
IMO he'll streamline the local plan process, and make doing it rapidly a "do it or else" thing with effective remedies. These will imo involve the Planning Inspectorate, who are good, and bound by law and policy not local politics - which is why Nimbies hate them.
A past straw in the wind was a "presumption in favour of development if no approved plan in place" around 2010-2015 before it was blunted. That allowed development, but it was piece by piece controlled by what applications developers made - I got one through at that time on family land. That meant that local politicians could slope shoulders on taking responsibility; that culture needs to die to meet his objectives. He'll seek to systematise it in a way that will stymie parish pump politics.
The difficult stuff is that it has to work with capacity building and ensuring quality, where Building Control departments have been slashed like everything else. His 300k per annum target is also tough, unless they have done some sweet data analysis on the blocked pipeline, because even at pace it will be 1-2 years to start anything moving in quantity. Unlike Mr Corbyn who promised Golden Calves I think they have an idea what they are doing.
There will be big fights with LD MPs in the South, and bodies such as the CPRE.
He will need to do Greybelt (ie brownfield sites in the Greenbelt), and high density urban build. Me, I'd take a couple of big London Council Estates, and turn them very high density developments - say double the Barbican density to give London capacity.
He also needs to get the Planning Gain tax arrangements right, to allow good but smallish windfalls to landowners, as he needs so much more money. It will be really interesting to see if the use of CPO at agricultural value plus a defined premium is done, and how Councils will get the skills / capacity to manage it.
It's all one to watch, which has potential to blow up their reputation in some places.
It's a lot of balls to juggle and get right.
My take on the Times is that they are just stirring.
A really good graphic video depicting the events in Butler, PA last Saturday, summarising everything we know at this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVA7aXOH1pk (6’ long, contains a warning at the start about graphic images, but contains nothing more graphic than images of Trump with blood on his head).
Meanwhile, attendees at the RNC in Milwaukee are describing a security Hell, with various groups of police unsure about which passes are valid for which areas. Because posting a sign at each checkpoint with a list of valid passes, as at every music concert you’ve ever been to, appears to be too difficult for them. Sounds horribly familiar.
Well, it's not odd really.
I am pretty sure that I have never been able to take large amounts of sugary food without unpleasant consequences. Tests at younger age showed blood sugar normal. Suspect Pancreas was always a bit weak but with ageing it got worse.
Incidentally over the years I have built up a spreadsheet of daily fasting readings, taken first thing after getting out of bed. These with a formula (using 90 days readings) enable me to forecast HBa1C remarkably accurately, to within a point or two of the official reading. Poor eating dosent have an immediate effect (other than a next day spike if late in the day) but you see a trend change start two or three days later.
It also (when I was deemed pre diabetic) was what got me diagnosed when the fasting went up too much so I sent a message to them with recent fasting results and said "I think you had better do something about this"
This is AMERICA, right wing America. True Americans carry guns. If Trump was doing his speech with an AR15 slung on his back he could have personally defended himself.
This is the failure. Not enough guns.
He blew up the companies his father had founded.
He screwed over thousands of investors.
He meddled endlessly with the legal system to the extent you could argue America doesn’t really have one any more.
He keeps getting caught committing various crimes because he can’t carry out simple bribery effectively.
He nearly sparked a nuclear war via a series of ill advised tweets.
He signed a deal to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban in the apparent belief he was doing the opposite.
He tried to rig an election and failed because he didn’t understand the processes involved.
He led Putin to believe America had given up on Europe, emboldening his forays in cyber warfare and ultimately leading to Ukraine.
When a pandemic hit he argued against preventive measures and vaccines instead urging people to drink disinfectant and sheep worming medicine.
Plus, he’s a serial failure as a husband.
He can’t get anything right at all. He’s only where he is because of vast inherited wealth and the complicity of certain officials in various frauds.
WTF? That's fucking stupid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c250v53jz5dt
The advantage of a CGM is it's rapid feedback. Too much dietary advice for diabetes makes assumptions that people live regular patterns to their day, eating at set times, having control of what foods are available, and exercising a regular amount. We don't live in a 1960s suburban sitcom lifestyle though, and I suspect few ever did. Combined with a DAFNE approach and a CGM people can have good control with a normal modern lifestyle.
The company allows anyone a free trial btw:
https://www.freestyle.abbott/uk-en/getting-started/sampling.html
One of my first shocks was that the understanding was that "your life expectancy is now 10-15 years less", which for one thing affected my pension planning.
But we all need our own adaptations, and to find ways to incorporate them. It could be a return to walking holidays - eg the Pennine Way, and a local ramblers group, or walking a new dog. I have one friend who got herself an extra 3-4 years of being pre-diabetic substantially by cutting out weekday beer, traditional chips, getting an air fryer, and a new lot of dogs. Equally something as simple as taking up bowls or cycling or regular walking can make a hell of a difference to general fitness, and even more so once we get into our late 60s or 70s or later.
Personally one thing I am looking at is getting involved in volunteering no the Ramblers Path Check setup - which are local teams of volunteers who walk all the public rights of way once a year to make sure they stay open, and report on problems to the Highways Authority.
Anyway - really wishing you all the best.
"Labour could introduce a new “office for health responsibility” as part of efforts to block policies that could harm the public’s health, one of its advisers has said.
Paul Corrigan, a former adviser to Sir Tony Blair, who has just been appointed to advise the Health Secretary Wes Streeting, said Sir Keir Starmer would make health the responsibility of all Government departments."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/16/labour-tony-blair-streeting-paul-corrigan-adviser-health/
Have the operating right under public control and offer concessions to operate them. As opposed to Stagecoach etc increasingly taking the public cash, told to run a service and then scrapping it
“A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”
Which, to be generous, is ill-informed babble but no, not telling people to drink disinfectant.
When Texas has far less women-friendly laws.
Yet another reminder that Musk wants women to be nothing more than baby-breeding machines.
As I said to one somewhat experienced diabetes nurse. "Yes I could do XYZ, but then I would wreck my mental health". Its a balance.
If you are thoughtful and interested in improving your condition, they would normally be quite happy to spend some time with you or talking on the phone. If you explain what you are trying to achieve in practice, specialist nurses are often a far better resource than Doctors, because they have a far more constant contact with the daily practicalities.
Another option is online or charitable resources. I learnt my stuff from the Insulin Pumpers group I mentioned yesterday - back in 2001 it was an email list running at a couple of hundred messages a day with lots of experienced people on there. Like you, my first job when I got a downloadable meter was to develop an SS to predict HBA1c, which is now a standard KPI in my CGM system.
My occasional advice to new Type Is is to geek out on diabetes education for the first year, to not be apologetic about the need to do so, and to get into an immediate, uncompromising habit of being public about treatment. At that time some went "ugh" when seeing insulin jabs at a restaurant table, and had a view that it should be hidden or done in a toilet. When I was diagnosed I just told my employer I needed 6 weeks off to come to terms, and they let me do it; if they hadn't I would have resigned on the spot.
I'll stop there, but do let us know how you get on say at this point next next year
Devil will be in the detail, but it could be a slight misreporting of a plan to simplify and extend the franchising that's happening in Manchester.
...The buses bill will give local leaders greater powers to launch publicly owned bus services...
Don't wind yourselves up until they actually publish their bills.
But may I remind you the one part of the railways that are failing are not the TOCs. It's the DfT. I'd like to know how more centralisation (presumably away from councils as well as the operators) would work, given the experience of the railways.
NEW THREAD
..Other long-held Labour policies have not made the cut, including the party’s promise to bring the voting age down to 16.
Government insiders said they remained committed to the proposal but that bills to help drive economic growth were the priority this time round. One source suggested that voting age changes could wait until closer to the next election, prompting speculation that the plan may never happen at all...
The life expectancy reduction with diabetes is quite sobering, particularly now we see Type 2 even in kids. The figure is 14 years at age 30, 6 years reduction at 50:
https://www.hdruk.ac.uk/news/having-type-2-diabetes-at-30-years-old-may-reduce-life-expectancy-by-up-to-14-years/#:~:text=People diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at 30 years old,every decade of earlier diagnosis.
This is an average figure, and for any individual there is a range depending on control and other related risk factors. With the ideal approach normal life expectancy is well within reach, sadly balanced by a number of my patients who don't or cannot control their blood sugar, very often because of psychological issues.
11–12 Jul 2024 We Think 2,005 Pos: 38% Neg: 15% Net:+23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Before the GE Starmer was hovering around minus 3-5% net approval