I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
True, but never fancied it.
One of my standards is pasta with cream, asparagus and smoked salmon, classically you’re not supposed to add Parmesan to fish but I do. I suppose that makes me a pervert.
Pretty well, yes.
Also, pasta with cream is not nice, IMO.
Generally in agreement re pasta with cream. That fake carbonara muck that gets vended at some dining establishments is a great example. But make it in the traditional way with just the cheese, egg and black pepper for a sauce - stunning.
That sounds a little more like Cacio e Pepe. For Carbonara you'd want guanciale, or at least decent bacon.
Carbonara is apparently an invention of the mid 20th century, so it’s not some ur-dish originating in the mists of ancient time.
I don’t make it with cream myself because the drier “traditional” recipe is nicest, but the outrage at messing with dishes like this is completely confected.
Along with Nutella and Ciabatta.
I was surprised to hear the mayor of Bologna a few years ago saying that any sauce could legitimately call itself Bolognese provided it contained the key ingredients of white wine and cow's milk.
The most suprising, but useful, advice I have been given on bolognese is to drain the fat off the meat thoroughly after frying: it's an olive oil-based sauce, not a meat fat-based sauce.
There shouldn’t be much fat less . I use very little oil and cook the meat till it's browned and crusty . And I always put some cinnamon in to the bolognese . It adds a lovely warmth but you don’t taste the cinnamon.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
Amazing that with so many recent and ongoing miscarriages of justice, including those relating to the NHS, that so many people once again are prepared to take at face value what seems to be a decision that has questions that probably should be answered.
I suppose the @Stark_Dawnings of PB would have been applauding the sub-postmaster convictions.
I have not been following the Letby case too closely, but from what I have read, the really damning evidence is her diary and the notes found in her house.
But they perhaps can be explained away. And she would make a very convenient scapegoat for systematic failures in a hospital. Who would want another Stafford case, if you can just blame one convenient nurse?
You mean the way she wrote "I did this, I am evil" in her diary about the death of a baby?
Yes: I think it was her diary - rather than the statistics - that likely sank her in court.
Which is concerning if so, as people going through shitty situations can blame themselves even if they're not responsible and there's nothing wrong with that.
If she is innocent (big if) then the fact that she took the deaths personally and wrote something in her diary would be entirely natural.
From what little I have picked up over time I think most murderers find a way to justify the murder to themselves - they were forced into it, it was for the victim's own good, etc. The self-blame does speak to me of depression more than confession.
Had a meeting this evening with local Tory members to discuss the party leadership with our MP before the vote later this week. Had a straw poll at the end, Jenrick and Badenoch came joint top with Tugendhat a strong third
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
There aren't, because it was of suspicious deaths only and the probability of so many happening 'by chance' when she was around run to one in several billion.
This is one of those things that will absorb a huge amount of time and energy to argue with those who are convinced otherwise, who will never change their minds.
Someone else used extremely high odds of an event happening to wrongfully convict Sally Clark. I do not know if Letby is guilty or innocent, but I do think she was let down by her defence team, and the statistics used against her MAY be flawed, as has been suggested by better statisticians than me.
The suggestion Letby was let down by the defence is an entirely unwarranted assertion. There just isn't the information available to the public to enable that sort of judgment to be made. Nor are they in a position to defend themselves because of privilege.
What Letby (for whom, I feel a great sadness, as I don't think she can be sane in any normal sense of the term) has not done is sack her team and appoint another either for the appeal or the retrial. If she were genuinely innocent, and if she knew there was exculpatory expert material they had declined to use, and good fresh evidence they had negligently not obtained she would in the circumstances already have done so.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
True, but never fancied it.
One of my standards is pasta with cream, asparagus and smoked salmon, classically you’re not supposed to add Parmesan to fish but I do. I suppose that makes me a pervert.
Pretty well, yes.
Also, pasta with cream is not nice, IMO.
Generally in agreement re pasta with cream. That fake carbonara muck that gets vended at some dining establishments is a great example. But make it in the traditional way with just the cheese, egg and black pepper for a sauce - stunning.
That sounds a little more like Cacio e Pepe. For Carbonara you'd want guanciale, or at least decent bacon.
Carbonara is apparently an invention of the mid 20th century, so it’s not some ur-dish originating in the mists of ancient time.
I don’t make it with cream myself because the drier “traditional” recipe is nicest, but the outrage at messing with dishes like this is completely confected.
Along with Nutella and Ciabatta.
I was surprised to hear the mayor of Bologna a few years ago saying that any sauce could legitimately call itself Bolognese provided it contained the key ingredients of white wine and cow's milk.
The most suprising, but useful, advice I have been given on bolognese is to drain the fat off the meat thoroughly after frying: it's an olive oil-based sauce, not a meat fat-based sauce.
There shouldn’t be much fat less . I use very little oil and cook the meat till it's browned and crusty . And I always put some cinnamon in to the bolognese . It adds a lovely warmth but you don’t taste the cinnamon.
Interesting! I use nutmeg, but have never heard of cinnamon. Worth a try.
Had a meeting with local Tory members to discuss the party leadership with our MP before the vote later this week. Had a straw poll at the end, Jenrick and Badenoch came joint top with Tugendhat a strong third
Amazing that with so many recent and ongoing miscarriages of justice, including those relating to the NHS, that so many people once again are prepared to take at face value what seems to be a decision that has questions that probably should be answered.
I suppose the @Stark_Dawnings of PB would have been applauding the sub-postmaster convictions.
I have not been following the Letby case too closely, but from what I have read, the really damning evidence is her diary and the notes found in her house.
But they perhaps can be explained away. And she would make a very convenient scapegoat for systematic failures in a hospital. Who would want another Stafford case, if you can just blame one convenient nurse?
You mean the way she wrote "I did this, I am evil" in her diary about the death of a baby?
Yes: I think it was her diary - rather than the statistics - that likely sank her in court.
Which is concerning if so, as people going through shitty situations can blame themselves even if they're not responsible and there's nothing wrong with that.
If she is innocent (big if) then the fact that she took the deaths personally and wrote something in her diary would be entirely natural.
From what little I have picked up over time I think most murderers find a way to justify the murder to themselves - they were forced into it, it was for the victim's own good, etc. The self-blame does speak to me of depression more than confession.
Absolutely agreed.
There may be other evidence that is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't know, and I don't want to say if the evidence is sound or not, but that specific element is very objectionable.
That's a very helpful piece, as it fills in gaps in my knowledge.
TL;DR: there's currently a gag order on Lucy Letby reporting because she is due to face trial again on one of the counts the original jury was hung on.
I was confused why the New Yorker (and other magazines) were unable to report, and now I know.
A more general question away from the specifics of this case. Does a gag order apply to foreign publications? Is the New Yorker subject to the gag order because it is sold in the UK? How do these gag orders work when they cannot be enforced (if they cannot be enforced?)
It's legally 'enforcible' in the UK I think, as in there is liability and their UK edition is subject to UK law. Like Elon Musk was informed that he was subject to EU law for Twitter's publications in the EU before he had his tantrum.
I think the practicalities of enforcement are a matter of fact and degree. Say 100 copies of the New Yorker will not perhaps be deemed enough to undermine the objectivity of the potential Jury, but if they have a UK footprint they could be called into the Court.
Even now, I don't think it's much different from the Spycatcher case - and it is fairly common for material to be published abroad when there is an injunction on publication within the UK - there may even be English / Scottish legal differences which has been a thing before.
Cheers sir. I supose the main reason I asked was because Robert is a US based reader looking at a US based publication and I was wondering how much it would be affected by any UK gag order.
Of course it would be nice to think that the editors of a US based magazine which was widely read in the UK would consider their public duty to not endanger forthcoming trials even if there was no legal comeback on them.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
True, but never fancied it.
One of my standards is pasta with cream, asparagus and smoked salmon, classically you’re not supposed to add Parmesan to fish but I do. I suppose that makes me a pervert.
Pretty well, yes.
Also, pasta with cream is not nice, IMO.
Generally in agreement re pasta with cream. That fake carbonara muck that gets vended at some dining establishments is a great example. But make it in the traditional way with just the cheese, egg and black pepper for a sauce - stunning.
That sounds a little more like Cacio e Pepe. For Carbonara you'd want guanciale, or at least decent bacon.
Carbonara is apparently an invention of the mid 20th century, so it’s not some ur-dish originating in the mists of ancient time.
I don’t make it with cream myself because the drier “traditional” recipe is nicest, but the outrage at messing with dishes like this is completely confected.
Along with Nutella and Ciabatta.
I was surprised to hear the mayor of Bologna a few years ago saying that any sauce could legitimately call itself Bolognese provided it contained the key ingredients of white wine and cow's milk.
The most suprising, but useful, advice I have been given on bolognese is to drain the fat off the meat thoroughly after frying: it's an olive oil-based sauce, not a meat fat-based sauce.
There shouldn’t be much fat less . I use very little oil and cook the meat till it's browned and crusty . And I always put some cinnamon in to the bolognese . It adds a lovely warmth but you don’t taste the cinnamon.
Interesting! I use nutmeg, but have never heard of cinnamon. Worth a try.
Give it a try . You shouldn’t taste the cinnamon in the bolognese , it just adds a warmth and rounds the flavour if that makes sense .
Amazing that with so many recent and ongoing miscarriages of justice, including those relating to the NHS, that so many people once again are prepared to take at face value what seems to be a decision that has questions that probably should be answered.
I suppose the @Stark_Dawnings of PB would have been applauding the sub-postmaster convictions.
I have not been following the Letby case too closely, but from what I have read, the really damning evidence is her diary and the notes found in her house.
But they perhaps can be explained away. And she would make a very convenient scapegoat for systematic failures in a hospital. Who would want another Stafford case, if you can just blame one convenient nurse?
You mean the way she wrote "I did this, I am evil" in her diary about the death of a baby?
Yes: I think it was her diary - rather than the statistics - that likely sank her in court.
Which is concerning if so, as people going through shitty situations can blame themselves even if they're not responsible and there's nothing wrong with that.
If she is innocent (big if) then the fact that she took the deaths personally and wrote something in her diary would be entirely natural.
From what little I have picked up over time I think most murderers find a way to justify the murder to themselves - they were forced into it, it was for the victim's own good, etc. The self-blame does speak to me of depression more than confession.
Absolutely agreed.
There may be other evidence that is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't know, and I don't want to say if the evidence is sound or not, but that specific element is very objectionable.
It's classic teenage girl stuff. "I'm not good enough. I don't deserve X" etc etc. Unusual for an adult, but in a crisis perhaps one regresses. Or maybe she is just childish. We have this idea that anyone who gets through a degree and gets a serious qualification has become an adult - but it's not necessarily so. I don't think a jury would have convicted on the diary/notes alone.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
To go a bit OTT (wel where would PB be without OTT) what should we call Guy Gibsons dog? By your version he would presumably be called midnight, or some such.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
So what if it was Man of the Match or مین آف دی میچ or තරගයේ වීරයා or taragayē vīrayā or anything else?
If Man of the Match translates to Player of the Match as the title in English today then that is what we call it.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
It is just conceivable that this bit of hand waving captures the beginnings of a ground of appeal. If (big if) the case was in fact presented on a false statistical basis, if in fact other babies died in systemically and evidentially suspicious circumstances when Letby was not present, and if in fact she was NOT the only one present at all relevant deaths.
Very ill babies die in hospitals. Most are not murdered. If that is what this bit of data amounts to, it is not of real forensic interest. You also have to account for the defence not calling expert evidence themselves and not making it a ground of appeal.
The accumulated hand waving suggests that the entire defence and expert community was as thick as planks and couldn't see stuff obvious to keyboard warriors. Always possible if unlikely. But I don't see evidence for it yet. Keep an open mind.
I have an open mind. You are being a bit harsh referring to hand waving when we are just discussing on PB. I'm not going to write a 5000 word essay with appropriate references. There is stuff out there by statisticians about why the slam dunk chart may not be all that. Worth seeking out, if you are interested in why some think the case is not watertight.
Thanks. I don't want 5000 words. I want, and have not seen, short paragraphs in simple English which would give a ground or grounds for an appeal. The ones the appeal didn't notice.
Eg: The statistical evidence concerning X given by Prof Y should have been excluded from the prosecution evidence by the judge because it was methodologically flawed by reason of A, B and C.
On account of this the summing up/prosecution closing speech misled the jury as to the significance and weight of the statistical evidence against the defendant in ways D, E and F.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
So what if it was Man of the Match or مین آف دی میچ or තරගයේ වීරයා or taragayē vīrayā or anything else?
If Man of the Match translates to Player of the Match as the title in English today then that is what we call it.
We don't need to translate from 5 years ago. I am totally on board with the use of battery in women's sport, but still wish to keep batsman in mens. I note that third man has not yet been assaulted, although it will probably fall in time.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
To go a bit OTT (wel where would PB be without OTT) what should we call Guy Gibsons dog? By your version he would presumably be called midnight, or some such.
Has he got a new name? As far as I know he has not.
Player of the Match is the name today of the title and the award has continuity so that is its title today, whether you like it or not.
Nothing stopping you from using an old title, but titles/names get changed all the time, there's nothing novel or woke about it.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
So what if it was Man of the Match or مین آف دی میچ or තරගයේ වීරයා or taragayē vīrayā or anything else?
If Man of the Match translates to Player of the Match as the title in English today then that is what we call it.
We don't need to translate from 5 years ago. I am totally on board with the use of battery in women's sport, but still wish to keep batsman in mens. I note that third man has not yet been assaulted, although it will probably fall in time.
Why don't we ned to translate from 5 years ago?
Because you can't be bothered? Because it offends you?
Or is there a legitimate reason?
Where do we draw the line on what gets translated and what does not?
I have no objection to translations. Whether that be translating from Urdu to English, or from an old title to a modern one.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
To go a bit OTT (wel where would PB be without OTT) what should we call Guy Gibsons dog? By your version he would presumably be called midnight, or some such.
Has he got a new name? As far as I know he has not.
Player of the Match is the name today of the title and the award has continuity so that is its title today, whether you like it or not.
Nothing stopping you from using an old title, but titles/names get changed all the time, there's nothing novel or woke about it.
Well yes - he has been renamed in a recent drama. And come on, it really is woke to change to player rather than man, for men's cricket.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
There's no licensing requirements I am aware of unless you try to hitch up a "fifth wheel" trailer where the hitch rests on the truck bed, which apparently makes you an artic lorry in UK eyes. Otherwise a car license is ok.
I think that the Americans are starting to take this seriously is quite important. They are the trend setter when it comes to vehicles.
That's it's a concern over other car occupants that is driving this, rather than increased fatalities for pedestrians and cyclists, is very American too.
I'm quite interested to hear that from your good self; perhaps I have taken the wrong emphasis !
My view of Usonians is that on issues around vehicles and road safety they are the lobotomised, knuckle-dragging cavemen of the Western World, not the trend setters. One of the best decisions all the other countries, except possibly Australia / Canada etc, have made,has been to ignore them as far as possible.
There's a reason why they export so few motor vehicles to the civilised world, except where their culture has been imposed - and they have a $100bn deficit on the category in trade figures.
Even their more open-minded USA based traffic engineers wanting to improve road safety (eg Road Guy Rob on Youtube), have not yet got to grips with the very basic idea that the way to make roads safer is to work with Systems Safety across modes, not individual behaviour. The overwhelming theme around pedestrians for example is "how can they keep themselves safe", which is antediluvian - it even defines the academic research which gets done.
You know what: I might be wrong.
I just assumed that the proliferation of pick up trucks in urban areas was an American influence coming to the UK, along with the general increased size of cars (look at the size of the new Defender). Perhaps we have a self-made, but relatively minor, problem.
I have previously tried to do a similar analysis as that in the Economist article but STATS19 wasn't easy to play with.
Let me try and be a bit more precise, having had my slight rant. I do partly agree.
I think the USA has moved to very large pickup trucks / SUVs - away from both station wagons and traditional 2 seat pick ups (think Uncle Jessie in the Dukes of Hazzard). The USA is distinctive in that their "Light Truck" category is exempt from many safety regulations - manufacturers love it because it saves them money and makes more profit. Drivers like them because it makes them feel safe, and the USA has a very individualistic road culture which mitigates against such drivers considering other people eg pedestrians. They also have issues around drivers only receiving perhaps 60% of training time as is normal in Europe, minimal equivalent of MOT tests etc.
Bart is correct that these are seriously bigger than SUV/Crew Cab Pickups sold in Europe.
In this move they are ahead of Europe; it goes back maybe 20-30 years or more, and pedestrian deaths in the USA started seriously rising in ~2009/10, and are up by 80% since.
I think it's fair to say that the increase in SUVs here is a parallel trend, but I don't think it is following the USA as such - though it is also motivated by a belief that it keeps the people inside the vehicle "safe", and also around things like if you need to carry 3 or 4 children, or want to pretend in your head that you are an explorer of the wild. Our SUVs and Crew Cab Pickups are also bigger - with lengths up to 5.5-6m which is up to 1m more than a big estate (mine is 4.86m long), and widths towards 2.2m overall. Example - Ford F150.
There are aspirational trends around mid-size and 'looks like' SUVs taking over from smaller cars, and general upsizing.
I'd say the European trend is more recent than the USA one - post-2000 - and the big vehicles are smaller. European ones are also subject to proper safety regs.
I think Bart is half mistaken on the safety, and rather treats the USA as black and Europe as white, whilst it is more like dark gray and light grey.
We do have data that in Europe / UK SUVs etc are more harmful to those outside the vehicle in collisions but it is nothing like the USA problem for the reasons above. We had data from Belgium some time ago, as you know, and we have correlated data from the UK on death rates being higher for pedestrians for more powerful and I think heavier vehicles.
IMO this IS a problem, and needs action. I think we will see similar, but less extreme, trends in Europe in the overall stats at some point in the next few years.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
To go a bit OTT (wel where would PB be without OTT) what should we call Guy Gibsons dog? By your version he would presumably be called midnight, or some such.
Has he got a new name? As far as I know he has not.
Player of the Match is the name today of the title and the award has continuity so that is its title today, whether you like it or not.
Nothing stopping you from using an old title, but titles/names get changed all the time, there's nothing novel or woke about it.
Well yes - he has been renamed in a recent drama. And come on, it really is woke to change to player rather than man, for men's cricket.
Then woke is meaningless if that is the kind of shit you care about.
Language has been evolving for thousands of years.
We've been updating what we call things for thousands of years.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
So what if it was Man of the Match or مین آف دی میچ or තරගයේ වීරයා or taragayē vīrayā or anything else?
If Man of the Match translates to Player of the Match as the title in English today then that is what we call it.
We don't need to translate from 5 years ago. I am totally on board with the use of battery in women's sport, but still wish to keep batsman in mens. I note that third man has not yet been assaulted, although it will probably fall in time.
Why don't we ned to translate from 5 years ago?
Because you can't be bothered? Because it offends you?
Or is there a legitimate reason?
Where do we draw the line on what gets translated and what does not?
I have no objection to translations. Whether that be translating from Urdu to English, or from an old title to a modern one.
It's not even an 'old' title. MOTM is still in use.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
That's not quite true (surprise). Double-cab pick up trucks have the same favourable tax advantages as other commercial vehicles, despite having car-like characteristics. That gives them a relative advantage over a company car.
HMRC u-turned on a change to this earlier this year when truck owners kicked up a fuss.
I think that the Americans are starting to take this seriously is quite important. They are the trend setter when it comes to vehicles.
That's it's a concern over other car occupants that is driving this, rather than increased fatalities for pedestrians and cyclists, is very American too.
I'm quite interested to hear that from your good self; perhaps I have taken the wrong emphasis !
My view of Usonians is that on issues around vehicles and road safety they are the lobotomised, knuckle-dragging cavemen of the Western World, not the trend setters. One of the best decisions all the other countries, except possibly Australia / Canada etc, have made,has been to ignore them as far as possible.
There's a reason why they export so few motor vehicles to the civilised world, except where their culture has been imposed - and they have a $100bn deficit on the category in trade figures.
Even their more open-minded USA based traffic engineers wanting to improve road safety (eg Road Guy Rob on Youtube), have not yet got to grips with the very basic idea that the way to make roads safer is to work with Systems Safety across modes, not individual behaviour. The overwhelming theme around pedestrians for example is "how can they keep themselves safe", which is antediluvian - it even defines the academic research which gets done.
You know what: I might be wrong.
I just assumed that the proliferation of pick up trucks in urban areas was an American influence coming to the UK, along with the general increased size of cars (look at the size of the new Defender). Perhaps we have a self-made, but relatively minor, problem.
I have previously tried to do a similar analysis as that in the Economist article but STATS19 wasn't easy to play with.
Let me try and be a bit more precise, having had my slight rant. I do partly agree.
I think the USA has moved to very large pickup trucks / SUVs - away from both station wagons and traditional 2 seat pick ups (think Uncle Jessie in the Dukes of Hazzard). The USA is distinctive in that their "Light Truck" category is exempt from many safety regulations - manufacturers love it because it saves them money and makes more profit. Drivers like it because it makes them feel safe.
Bart is correct that these are seriously bigger than SUV/Pickups especially crew cabs sold in Europe.
In this move they are ahead of Europe; it goes back maybe 20-30 years or more, and pedestrian deaths in the USA started seriously rising in ~2009/10, and are up by 80% since.
I think it's fair to say that the increase in SUVs here is a parallel trend, but I don't think it is following the USA as such - though it is also motivated by a belief that it keeps the people inside the vehicle "safe", and also around things like if you need to carry 3 or 4 children, or want to pretend in your head that you are an explorer of the wild. Our SUVs and Crew Cab Pickups are also bigger - with lengths up to 5.5-6m which is up to 1m more than a big estate (mine is 4.86m long), and widths towards 2.2m overall. Example - Ford F150.
There are aspirational trends around mid-size and 'looks like' SUVs taking over from smaller cars, and general upsizing.
I'd say the European trend is more recent than the USA one - post-2000 - and the big vehicles are smaller. European ones are also subject to proper safety regs.
I think Bart is half mistaken on the safety, and rather treats the USA as black and Europe as white, whilst it is more like dark gray and light grey.
We do have data that in Europe / UK SUVs etc are more harmful to those outside the vehicle in collisions but it is nothing like the USA problem for the reasons above. We had data from Belgium some time ago, as you know, and we have correlated data from the UK on death rates being higher for pedestrians for more powerful and I think heavier vehicles.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
I was young at the time and so may have missed some of the details. My understanding was that Gilligan was the one who was making stuff up?
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
True, but never fancied it.
One of my standards is pasta with cream, asparagus and smoked salmon, classically you’re not supposed to add Parmesan to fish but I do. I suppose that makes me a pervert.
Pretty well, yes.
Also, pasta with cream is not nice, IMO.
Generally in agreement re pasta with cream. That fake carbonara muck that gets vended at some dining establishments is a great example. But make it in the traditional way with just the cheese, egg and black pepper for a sauce - stunning.
Carbonara only dates back to the late 1940s probably, so there are people on PB who are older than the recipe. It was possibly first made with powdered egg! So I’m not certain how much I’d lean on “tradition”.
I’m reading “ Delizia: The Epic History of Italians and Their Food” by John Dickie, which is good, and very critical of narratives of tradition in Italian cuisine.
Amazing that with so many recent and ongoing miscarriages of justice, including those relating to the NHS, that so many people once again are prepared to take at face value what seems to be a decision that has questions that probably should be answered.
I suppose the @Stark_Dawnings of PB would have been applauding the sub-postmaster convictions.
I have not been following the Letby case too closely, but from what I have read, the really damning evidence is her diary and the notes found in her house.
But they perhaps can be explained away. And she would make a very convenient scapegoat for systematic failures in a hospital. Who would want another Stafford case, if you can just blame one convenient nurse?
You mean the way she wrote "I did this, I am evil" in her diary about the death of a baby?
Yes: I think it was her diary - rather than the statistics - that likely sank her in court.
Which is concerning if so, as people going through shitty situations can blame themselves even if they're not responsible and there's nothing wrong with that.
If she is innocent (big if) then the fact that she took the deaths personally and wrote something in her diary would be entirely natural.
From what little I have picked up over time I think most murderers find a way to justify the murder to themselves - they were forced into it, it was for the victim's own good, etc. The self-blame does speak to me of depression more than confession.
Absolutely agreed.
There may be other evidence that is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't know, and I don't want to say if the evidence is sound or not, but that specific element is very objectionable.
It's classic teenage girl stuff. "I'm not good enough. I don't deserve X" etc etc. Unusual for an adult, but in a crisis perhaps one regresses. Or maybe she is just childish. We have this idea that anyone who gets through a degree and gets a serious qualification has become an adult - but it's not necessarily so. I don't think a jury would have convicted on the diary/notes alone.
The point is easily missed. The notes are evidence, and undeniably so. What weight to place on them will depend on other evidence and its corroborating value, the reliance the jury place on the explanation of the notes given by the defendant and their own common sense. Only the jury see and hear the whole.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
True, but never fancied it.
One of my standards is pasta with cream, asparagus and smoked salmon, classically you’re not supposed to add Parmesan to fish but I do. I suppose that makes me a pervert.
Pretty well, yes.
Also, pasta with cream is not nice, IMO.
Generally in agreement re pasta with cream. That fake carbonara muck that gets vended at some dining establishments is a great example. But make it in the traditional way with just the cheese, egg and black pepper for a sauce - stunning.
That sounds a little more like Cacio e Pepe. For Carbonara you'd want guanciale, or at least decent bacon.
Carbonara is apparently an invention of the mid 20th century, so it’s not some ur-dish originating in the mists of ancient time.
I don’t make it with cream myself because the drier “traditional” recipe is nicest, but the outrage at messing with dishes like this is completely confected.
Carbonara was invented by in 1944 by a Roman chef for a dinner held by top brass in the occupying American army. The Americans had two absolutely essential ingredients that weren't available in Italy at the time: good quality bacon and army issue powdered eggs.
You need powdered eggs and American bacon for an authentic carbonara.
Interesting article if you can get past the paywall. The author's thesis is almost all Italian traditional dishes were invented after the Second World War when people shook off centuries of poverty and could afford a diet that didn't just consist of bread, root vegetables and dried beans.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
I was young at the time and so may have missed some of the details. My understanding was that Gilligan was the one who was making stuff up?
IIRC (not guaranteed) Kelly told Gilligan stuff in confidence that he expected not to be reported but which Gilligan DID report. Stuff that was true but which AC and the government strenuous objected to, and claimed was untrue (when it was broadly correct). Kelly was then effectively threatened with losing everything, including his pension, for basically telling the truth to someone who he trusted, but shouldn't have.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
To go a bit OTT (wel where would PB be without OTT) what should we call Guy Gibsons dog? By your version he would presumably be called midnight, or some such.
Has he got a new name? As far as I know he has not.
Player of the Match is the name today of the title and the award has continuity so that is its title today, whether you like it or not.
Nothing stopping you from using an old title, but titles/names get changed all the time, there's nothing novel or woke about it.
Well yes - he has been renamed in a recent drama.
Oh and dramas rename characters all the time - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Kind of goes with the term "drama" as opposed to "documentary".
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
So what if it was Man of the Match or مین آف دی میچ or තරගයේ වීරයා or taragayē vīrayā or anything else?
If Man of the Match translates to Player of the Match as the title in English today then that is what we call it.
We don't need to translate from 5 years ago. I am totally on board with the use of battery in women's sport, but still wish to keep batsman in mens. I note that third man has not yet been assaulted, although it will probably fall in time.
The female and younger commentstors on TMS tend to call it "third".
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
So what if it was Man of the Match or مین آف دی میچ or තරගයේ වීරයා or taragayē vīrayā or anything else?
If Man of the Match translates to Player of the Match as the title in English today then that is what we call it.
We don't need to translate from 5 years ago. I am totally on board with the use of battery in women's sport, but still wish to keep batsman in mens. I note that third man has not yet been assaulted, although it will probably fall in time.
The female and younger commentstors on TMS tend to call it "third".
Third what? Third slip? Third man. I have the cricket team towel to prove it.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
English is a language that allows one to say the same thing in many different ways. I don't see a meaningful difference between "[wo]man of the match" and "player of the match" and don't care which form is used, but they surely refer to the same thing - which individual received the MVP award for that match?
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
In the UK large crewcab pickups (>1 tonne payload iirc) are tax-incentivised over small crew-cab pickups, because the last Govt reversed a Court decision won by the HMRC that they would be treated as cars for tax purposes.
The difference is aiui a matter of several k per annum, which tips people towards buying the big ones not the small ones.
Had a meeting this evening with local Tory members to discuss the party leadership with our MP before the vote later this week. Had a straw poll at the end, Jenrick and Badenoch came joint top with Tugendhat a strong third
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is rewriting events they happened. Go back and watch the highlights. It was man of the match, despite what your translation says...
English is a language that allows one to say the same thing in many different ways. I don't see a meaningful difference between "[wo]man of the match" and "player of the match" and don't care which form is used, but they surely refer to the same thing - which individual received the MVP award for that match?
I understand that, but the fact remains a player was awarded the Man of the match award and is now being listed as the player of the match for no good reason, other than lazy coding to accommodate women's cricket.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is bullshit that the title has been changed. Cricket is played in teams of men or teams of women. There was therefore zero issue with a 'man of the match' and its direct equivalent - 'woman of the match'. Changing both over to 'player' is anodyne and inelegant and smacks of cretins shitting the bed in a contest over who can be more politically correct.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
In the UK large crewcab pickups (?1 tonne payload iirc) are tax-incentivised over small crew-cab pickups, because the last Govt reversed a Court decision won by the HMRC that they would be treated as cars for tax purposes.
The difference is aiui a matter of several k per annum, which tips people towards buying the big ones not the small ones.
There is also a general point that the classic Ford Transit van is (I'm told) much friendlier to pedestrians/cyclists in a collision than any type of pick-up truck. Visibility + shape.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
At least that's the story as it is told now. It's almost certainly what happened. But the correct approach would have been to look up the duty rosters without already targeting Letby. You know this, you use stats all the time.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is bullshit that the title has been changed. Cricket is played in teams of men or teams of women. There was therefore zero issue with a 'man of the match' and its direct equivalent - 'woman of the match'. Changing both over to 'player' is anodyne and inelegant and smacks of cretins shitting the bed in a contest over who can be more politically correct.
Cricket is also played by teams of players.
There is therefore zero issue with a 'player of the match' which can be awarded consistently whether it be to a man or a woman.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
I think there is a distinction - if a bit blurred - between culture warriors and the anti-WEF/5G/Vaxxer brigade. It's the latter who seem most agitated by Letby.
I worry about your browsing habits if you get regular exposure to the thoughts of that "brigade" but if you are right, so what? Adolf Hitler probably accepted a heliocentric picture of the solar system but that doesn't hugely affect the merits of that picture.
That's my local Facebook/Nextdoor. Honourable mention to the fur baby lovers (XL Bullies).
I didn't mean anything by my comment, only that I think the right-wing culture warriors have a loose hold on reality in a way that the anti-5G folks do not.
I have no idea about Letby but it strikes me that each concern about the case is taken in isolation, rather than looking at the full picture as the jury did. I think the comparison with the Post Office is wrong unless you are alleging a institutional conspiracy against that NHS trust (which isn't a particularly mad idea, but at least put those cards on the table).
I have no idea whether Letby is innocent or guilty, I'd hope she's guilty given that's what the jury found, but then the criminal justice system in this country has a long ignoble history of finding innocent people guilty.
The Post Office subpostmasters are some some in a long line of those wrongly found guilty. Malkinson, Sally Clark and many, many more.
The only people more foolish than those adamant that Letby must be innocent because they distrust the state are those who claim she must be guilty because that's what a jury found. Miscarriages of justice absolutely can and do happen - I have no evidence to suggest Letby's case is one, but it should never be ruled out for any case which is one reason we should never have the death penalty even for the most horrific crimes.
Quite. The null hypothesis is that she didn't do it - most nurses don't. The test which proves she did it is the same test as threw up 700 out of 700 FPs in the PO case. So if your stance is "I don't want to get involved in the minutiae" let her out is the only possible position. If you do want to get involved in minutiae there's lots above the trial that absolutely sucks. And this is not the place to discuss it. But top tip: It must be right if highly paid lawyers were involved is not a cogent argument.
Indeed: she is innocent until proven guilty. And, I agree, the statistical evidence on its own certainly does not clear that hurdle. It's like if you pointed to a lottery winner and said "Really, they won by chance did they? that's a 16 million to one chance. Luck, my arse."
And juries struggle with that; I'm reminded of the cot death case from decades ago. Statistically, there's going to be one person every five years or so who has two kids die of cot deaths; that's the nature of random chance.
In this case, though, it wasn't just about the statistics, it was also about her diary, notes, and behaviour.
I don't know if she's guilty; I wasn't in the courtroom, and I worry about juries not properly understanding statistics. In other words, if this was a case of "experts" proclaiming her guilty, then I think she would have a much stronger case.
But this isn't just about statistics, there was other evidence too.
But her diary/notes (from the limited amount I've seen about what's out there) are entirely explainable by someone who is innocent feeling guilty because they're going through a shitty situation and they feel bad about that.
So I hope there's more to it than just that, or else we're back to just the statistical issue, which is concerning.
That’s the suggestion put forth by her defenders, but it’s a stretch. Healthcare professionals often face shitty situations and may blame themselves. Indeed, most will have made significant mistakes at some point in their careers, but I’m not aware of any cases where someone feeling bad about a situation did all the things Letby did. Stealing medical notes and taking them home is very unusual behaviour, for example.
And that’s more evidence against Letby. She was observed behaving suspiciously.
Amazing that with so many recent and ongoing miscarriages of justice, including those relating to the NHS, that so many people once again are prepared to take at face value what seems to be a decision that has questions that probably should be answered.
I suppose the @Stark_Dawnings of PB would have been applauding the sub-postmaster convictions.
I have not been following the Letby case too closely, but from what I have read, the really damning evidence is her diary and the notes found in her house.
But they perhaps can be explained away. And she would make a very convenient scapegoat for systematic failures in a hospital. Who would want another Stafford case, if you can just blame one convenient nurse?
You mean the way she wrote "I did this, I am evil" in her diary about the death of a baby?
Yes: I think it was her diary - rather than the statistics - that likely sank her in court.
Which is concerning if so, as people going through shitty situations can blame themselves even if they're not responsible and there's nothing wrong with that.
If she is innocent (big if) then the fact that she took the deaths personally and wrote something in her diary would be entirely natural.
From what little I have picked up over time I think most murderers find a way to justify the murder to themselves - they were forced into it, it was for the victim's own good, etc. The self-blame does speak to me of depression more than confession.
Absolutely agreed.
There may be other evidence that is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't know, and I don't want to say if the evidence is sound or not, but that specific element is very objectionable.
It's classic teenage girl stuff. "I'm not good enough. I don't deserve X" etc etc. Unusual for an adult, but in a crisis perhaps one regresses. Or maybe she is just childish. We have this idea that anyone who gets through a degree and gets a serious qualification has become an adult - but it's not necessarily so. I don't think a jury would have convicted on the diary/notes alone.
The point is easily missed. The notes are evidence, and undeniably so. What weight to place on them will depend on other evidence and its corroborating value, the reliance the jury place on the explanation of the notes given by the defendant and their own common sense. Only the jury see and hear the whole.
You've reminded me that she testified.
If they had not put on a defence, but simply said to the jury "it's the prosecution's burden, and they haven't met it", the lack of expert defence evidence might be easier to swallow. But having no experts and also allowing her to testify and be cross-examined, really does suggest they couldn't get what they wanted from their experts, or it would be so thin as to make cross-examintaion of them damaging to their case.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
I was young at the time and so may have missed some of the details. My understanding was that Gilligan was the one who was making stuff up?
Gilligan's reporting was like the Dossier. Sexed up.
Elon Musk is quote tweeting far right accounts again, this time implying there is a conspiracy to burn churches across France. The man has become very dangerous.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
I was young at the time and so may have missed some of the details. My understanding was that Gilligan was the one who was making stuff up?
IIRC (not guaranteed) Kelly told Gilligan stuff in confidence that he expected not to be reported but which Gilligan DID report. Stuff that was true but which AC and the government strenuous objected to, and claimed was untrue (when it was broadly correct). Kelly was then effectively threatened with losing everything, including his pension, for basically telling the truth to someone who he trusted, but shouldn't have.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
In the UK large crewcab pickups (>1 tonne payload iirc) are tax-incentivised over small crew-cab pickups, because the last Govt reversed a Court decision won by the HMRC that they would be treated as cars for tax purposes.
The difference is aiui a matter of several k per annum, which tips people towards buying the big ones not the small ones.
Given all the discussion over bold measures in the autumn budget, I wonder if big changes to the company car system might be afoot. Does every western country have a similar scheme, or are we unusual in that regard?
Back on topic I just want it acknowledged that today I did canoe the fastest river in Europe and the second deepest canyon in the world AND I fell in the longest rapids of its infamous 21 cascade lower section and I not only survived I was uninjured even tho it was horrifyingly scary at the time
And THEN I drove some of the wildest roads in Europe - in DURMITOR national park - hard by the ACCURSED MOUNTAINS and extraordinary Piva canyon as I motored up to the strangest medieval tombs in existence. The stecci
Then I came her to zabbajabbadaggle and I’m eating some Brie with a Bosnian wine and watching the last episode of 3 body problem
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Can anyone attend this conference? Sounds interesting.
Had a meeting this evening with local Tory members to discuss the party leadership with our MP before the vote later this week. Had a straw poll at the end, Jenrick and Badenoch came joint top with Tugendhat a strong third
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
At least that's the story as it is told now. It's almost certainly what happened. But the correct approach would have been to look up the duty rosters without already targeting Letby. You know this, you use stats all the time.
The sensible thing to do is to first decide which deaths are suspicious independently of whether Letby was on duty or not. This was done.
They then looked at all the nurses’ rotas, which I think is what you’re asking for here. So, no problem.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is bullshit that the title has been changed. Cricket is played in teams of men or teams of women. There was therefore zero issue with a 'man of the match' and its direct equivalent - 'woman of the match'. Changing both over to 'player' is anodyne and inelegant and smacks of cretins shitting the bed in a contest over who can be more politically correct.
Cricket is also played by teams of players.
There is therefore zero issue with a 'player of the match' which can be awarded consistently whether it be to a man or a woman.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
In the UK large crewcab pickups (?1 tonne payload iirc) are tax-incentivised over small crew-cab pickups, because the last Govt reversed a Court decision won by the HMRC that they would be treated as cars for tax purposes.
The difference is aiui a matter of several k per annum, which tips people towards buying the big ones not the small ones.
There is also a general point that the classic Ford Transit van is (I'm told) much friendlier to pedestrians/cyclists in a collision than any type of pick-up truck. Visibility + shape.
There is also a trend amongst people using wheelchair and mobility scooters and others towards car-versions (ie seats, windows) of the "mid-sized vans", eg Ford Transit Connect and Peugeot Partner, as alternatives to SUVs.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
And what exactly was the doctor's role in it all.
He was asked to look at the deaths and determine which was suspicious, as far as I remember.
I can attest that falling in serious rapids is like being a terrified atheist sock in an out-of-control tumble dryer, except everything is intensely cold and wet
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
At least that's the story as it is told now. It's almost certainly what happened. But the correct approach would have been to look up the duty rosters without already targeting Letby. You know this, you use stats all the time.
The sensible thing to do is to first decide which deaths are suspicious independently of whether Letby was on duty or not. This was done.
They then looked at all the nurses’ rotas, which I think is what you’re asking for here. So, no problem.
Not wanting to be argumentative, that's not what you said first time, but fair enough.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Can anyone attend this conference? Sounds interesting.
Yes, anyone can attend. (I don’t know that you can turn up on the day, but anyone can register to attend. It’s cheaper for RSS members.)
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
In the UK large crewcab pickups (?1 tonne payload iirc) are tax-incentivised over small crew-cab pickups, because the last Govt reversed a Court decision won by the HMRC that they would be treated as cars for tax purposes.
The difference is aiui a matter of several k per annum, which tips people towards buying the big ones not the small ones.
There is also a general point that the classic Ford Transit van is (I'm told) much friendlier to pedestrians/cyclists in a collision than any type of pick-up truck. Visibility + shape.
There is also a trend amongst people using wheelchair and mobility scooters and others towards car-versions (ie seats, windows) of the "mid-sized vans", eg Ford Transit Connect and Peugeot Partner, as alternatives to SUVs.
Personally I think we need People Carriers back.
Yeah, what happened to them? Every second car on my street was a Zafira, Galaxy or an Espace.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
I was young at the time and so may have missed some of the details. My understanding was that Gilligan was the one who was making stuff up?
IIRC (not guaranteed) Kelly told Gilligan stuff in confidence that he expected not to be reported but which Gilligan DID report. Stuff that was true but which AC and the government strenuous objected to, and claimed was untrue (when it was broadly correct). Kelly was then effectively threatened with losing everything, including his pension, for basically telling the truth to someone who he trusted, but shouldn't have.
Do you remember what those things were?
It was mainly the evidence about Saddam's alleged weapons - things like the 'ready to launch in 45 minutes'. This was implied to be against the UK etc, but was nothing of the sort. Mist if the stuff in the dodgy dossier was from a PhD thesis and not supported by the weapons inspectors, like Kelly who had spent much time in Iraq. Granted dodgy governments are likely to try to hide stuff, but the sad reality is Saddam was bluffing about his capabilities and the weapons inspectors knew this. Kelly lec Gilligan to the idea that the report was 'sexed up', and it was. AC et al got it rewritten to give the best possible case for war. The subsequent inquiry really should have sunk Blair and AC but although it's all their in the report, the judge pulled his punches in his oral summary.
Not usually up for banning things as a first option, but a ban on larger vehicles seems more than justified to me.
Sorry this means you'll never get your Cybertruck.
We have all sorts of regulation on cars and drivers to make the roads safer. I don't see why a weight or size limit shouldn't also be considered where that's shown to be a hazard to others on the roads.
They do exist already.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
In the UK large crewcab pickups (>1 tonne payload iirc) are tax-incentivised over small crew-cab pickups, because the last Govt reversed a Court decision won by the HMRC that they would be treated as cars for tax purposes.
The difference is aiui a matter of several k per annum, which tips people towards buying the big ones not the small ones.
Given all the discussion over bold measures in the autumn budget, I wonder if big changes to the company car system might be afoot. Does every western country have a similar scheme, or are we unusual in that regard?
I think it's going to be a Twin Peaks budget - a hell of a lot of strategic plumbing / long term strategic stuff some of which will have slow burns and not come to fruition until year 7, 10, 13 or 20, and another lot of things that will need to deliver immediate money and retail politics results by year 4 to aim to win the next election.
IMO one of the many things that need attention because Boris, Liz and Rishi did not dare touch it will be around both ICE vehicles and Electric vehicles. Fuel duty is low hanging fruit for immediate revenue - just withdraw the temporary cut and index link it as well will be a few billion per annum. But the VED system is in a mess and needs work. I think they will also want to have broken the back of the electric charging infra need.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
And what exactly was the doctor's role in it all.
He was asked to look at the deaths and determine which was suspicious, as far as I remember.
Why? What are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that maybe it suited the doctor to try to find a reason for the deaths that wasn't related to staffing, or the hospital, or the doctors there.
Maybe. Who knows.
But it's pretty depressing how quickly we defer to authority. In the NHS ffs. Which has one way or another killed a huge number of people or ruined their lives, as many inquiries attest.
The New Yorker article is interesting on these points (staffing and general competence).
Elon Musk is quote tweeting far right accounts again, this time implying there is a conspiracy to burn churches across France. The man has become very dangerous.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
True, but never fancied it.
One of my standards is pasta with cream, asparagus and smoked salmon, classically you’re not supposed to add Parmesan to fish but I do. I suppose that makes me a pervert.
Pretty well, yes.
Also, pasta with cream is not nice, IMO.
Generally in agreement re pasta with cream. That fake carbonara muck that gets vended at some dining establishments is a great example. But make it in the traditional way with just the cheese, egg and black pepper for a sauce - stunning.
That sounds a little more like Cacio e Pepe. For Carbonara you'd want guanciale, or at least decent bacon.
Carbonara is apparently an invention of the mid 20th century, so it’s not some ur-dish originating in the mists of ancient time.
I don’t make it with cream myself because the drier “traditional” recipe is nicest, but the outrage at messing with dishes like this is completely confected.
I didn't mean to suggest it was a precious recipe from the mists of time. Just that's the way it's made in Rome for the recent-ish past and present. Cacio e Pepe is delicious - just a different thing to Carbonara.
And I wasn’t specifically responding to your post, just meditating on the Italian penchant for preciousness about cuisine. Which I suspect is also largely a recent pop culture / social media phenomenon.
I read a 'history of pasta' book a year or two ago. I think we could largely group most 'Mediterranean' food into various groupings of 'pre/post New World', 'pre/post Industrialisation', 'pre/post Leon', etc
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
And what exactly was the doctor's role in it all.
Injecting NG feeds, iv drug administration and insulin etc are nursing duties not medical duties. Did you look at the timeline that I posted at the end of page 4? It is clear that a lot more evidence was presented than simply the duty rota.
I can attest that falling in serious rapids is like being a terrified atheist sock in an out-of-control tumble dryer, except everything is intensely cold and wet
I've done some whitewater kayaking in Scotland, NZ and Norway and you're right - it's about the most exhilarating experience you can have. It's amazing to feel your heart punching the inside of your chest like that.
I have a friend who explores new rivers in Nepal etc. Takes some courage.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
True, but never fancied it.
One of my standards is pasta with cream, asparagus and smoked salmon, classically you’re not supposed to add Parmesan to fish but I do. I suppose that makes me a pervert.
Pretty well, yes.
Also, pasta with cream is not nice, IMO.
Generally in agreement re pasta with cream. That fake carbonara muck that gets vended at some dining establishments is a great example. But make it in the traditional way with just the cheese, egg and black pepper for a sauce - stunning.
Carbonara only dates back to the late 1940s probably, so there are people on PB who are older than the recipe. It was possibly first made with powdered egg! So I’m not certain how much I’d lean on “tradition”.
I’m reading “ Delizia: The Epic History of Italians and Their Food” by John Dickie, which is good, and very critical of narratives of tradition in Italian cuisine.
This is why I enjoy PB. From a quick tangential post I have now learned an awful lot about carbonara that I didn’t know yesterday!
I can attest that falling in serious rapids is like being a terrified atheist sock in an out-of-control tumble dryer, except everything is intensely cold and wet
I've done some whitewater kayaking in Scotland, NZ and Norway and you're right - it's about the most exhilarating experience you can have. It's amazing to feel your heart punching the inside of your chest like that.
I have a friend who explores new rivers in Nepal etc. Takes some courage.
Have you fallen in any serious white water? It’s genuinely frightening - I now realise. I’ve only done it once before, hydrospeeding in the Pyrenees but it was 30 years ago and only lasted moments
This went on for several minutes which felt like hours. Or maybe it was only a minute. Still felt like hours. Constantly plunged underwater again - no idea of “up”
And I’m not a pussy when it comes to water sports. I’m one of the very few people in the world that’s done Antarctic kayaking which is phenomenally dangerous
I did it with the guy who invented Antarctic kayaking. I knew we were in trouble when I saw that HE was panicking. As the storm came in from Elephant Island
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
And what exactly was the doctor's role in it all.
He was asked to look at the deaths and determine which was suspicious, as far as I remember.
Why? What are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that maybe it suited the doctor to try to find a reason for the deaths that wasn't related to staffing, or the hospital, or the doctors there.
Maybe. Who knows.
But it's pretty depressing how quickly we defer to authority. In the NHS ffs. Which has one way or another killed a huge number of people or ruined their lives, as many inquiries attest.
The New Yorker article is interesting on these points (staffing and general competence).
My understanding is that the abnormally high death rate ceased once Letby was removed from duty.
This could be because she was the killer. Or it could be because the killer had framed her and was smart enough to stop at that point. It might even be coincidence.
It's unlikely to be because all the understaffing and organisational failures at the hospital were solved at that exact moment.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
And what exactly was the doctor's role in it all.
He was asked to look at the deaths and determine which was suspicious, as far as I remember.
Why? What are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that maybe it suited the doctor to try to find a reason for the deaths that wasn't related to staffing, or the hospital, or the doctors there.
Maybe. Who knows.
But it's pretty depressing how quickly we defer to authority. In the NHS ffs. Which has one way or another killed a huge number of people or ruined their lives, as many inquiries attest.
The New Yorker article is interesting on these points (staffing and general competence).
Doctors are, in my experience, very happy to blame problems on issues related to staffing or the hospital!
The defence, I presume, could have gone through the other deaths. I’ve never seen any analysis that shows how the determination of which deaths were suspicious was flawed. Vague “the NHS has problems” comments aren’t very convincing. Yes, the NHS has many problems, but they don’t explain this pattern of deaths, or all the other evidence.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
And what exactly was the doctor's role in it all.
He was asked to look at the deaths and determine which was suspicious, as far as I remember.
Why? What are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that maybe it suited the doctor to try to find a reason for the deaths that wasn't related to staffing, or the hospital, or the doctors there.
Maybe. Who knows.
But it's pretty depressing how quickly we defer to authority. In the NHS ffs. Which has one way or another killed a huge number of people or ruined their lives, as many inquiries attest.
The New Yorker article is interesting on these points (staffing and general competence).
I think the public enquiry will answer your questions.
I think the scandalous thing will be how management treated the whistle lowers who raised concerns over the spate of unexpected deaths.
If you want an NHS scandal that will be the place to look, and in keeping with a number of other NHS scandals.
Medical and Nursing serial killers are not unique to Britain, for example:
Focus group of voters in seats the Tories lost by More in Common for the Independent. Not much name recognition apart from Priti Patel.
'The least well known, former work and pensions secretary Mel Stride, who is favourite to be the first voted out on Wednesday, and was described as “dull” and “quite boring” with “a lack of real spark” by participants.
But the survey also found that ordinary voters strongly liked Mr Stride’s voice which many described as “being like David Attenborough” with some suggesting he had more of a future reading audiobooks than in politics.
While Dame Priti was the most recognised, this did not always work in her favour. Some remembered her for bullying allegations during her time as home secretary, others called her “divisive”.However, her reputation for straight talking and direct style was liked by participants...The candidate whose personality was most liked was Mr Cleverly, but many participants struggled to take him seriously..Meanwhile, Ms Badenoch was the one who was most likely to get both Reform and Lib Dem voters to switch back to the Tories.
A charity worker said: “She could bring some new fresh, young blood, slightly different to your typical public school boy Conservative leader.”
However, despite being in the cabinet her experience came under question. Others described her as “lacking in charisma” and “monotone” in her delivery..The candidate for the right has become former communities secretary Robert Jenrick, who has vowed to take the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
An engineer from Stockton said: “It felt like you could rely on him to deliver those things. It was the language he was using I thought was good.”But another participant said: “I quite like the policies of Robert Jenrick, but he didn’t come across as a likeable person who’s going to unite any party .”
It's tough. Medvedev, de Minaur, Tiafoe all on form. Sinner not on form, but electric at his best. But Draper's already hit a career high getting to a quarter final. Here's hoping.
Elon Musk is quote tweeting far right accounts again, this time implying there is a conspiracy to burn churches across France. The man has become very dangerous.
Why is that dangerous?
Was it dangerous when people were tweeting that the Southport attacker was a Muslim illegal immigrant?
I can attest that falling in serious rapids is like being a terrified atheist sock in an out-of-control tumble dryer, except everything is intensely cold and wet
I've done some whitewater kayaking in Scotland, NZ and Norway and you're right - it's about the most exhilarating experience you can have. It's amazing to feel your heart punching the inside of your chest like that.
I have a friend who explores new rivers in Nepal etc. Takes some courage.
Have you fallen in any serious white water? It’s genuinely frightening - I now realise. I’ve only done it once before, hydrospeeding in the Pyrenees but it was 30 years ago and only lasted moments
This went on for several minutes which felt like hours. Or maybe it was only a minute. Still felt like hours. Constantly plunged underwater again - no idea of “up”
And I’m not a pussy when it comes to water sports. I’m one of the very few people in the world that’s done Antarctic kayaking which is phenomenally dangerous
I did it with the guy who invented Antarctic kayaking. I knew we were in trouble when I saw that HE was panicking. As the storm came in from Elephant Island
Yes, I have. Always under supervision from the kind of people who can go in and pull you out but still.
My worst moment wasn't white water, but in a sea kayak. Upside down, big swell, lots of kelp, couldn't get out for some reason. It's when the salt goes up your nose and you start to panic.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Not ALL the deaths on the ward though. There were others that didn’t make it onto the incriminating chart. There are serious statistical issues around the slam dunk of ‘she was the only one present for all the deaths’, not least that those deaths are a cherry pick of ALL deaths on the ward.
The other deaths weren’t considered suspicious. A doctor made a list of suspicious deaths and then they looked up if Letby was on duty. That’s a sensible approach.
And what exactly was the doctor's role in it all.
He was asked to look at the deaths and determine which was suspicious, as far as I remember.
Why? What are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that maybe it suited the doctor to try to find a reason for the deaths that wasn't related to staffing, or the hospital, or the doctors there.
Maybe. Who knows.
But it's pretty depressing how quickly we defer to authority. In the NHS ffs. Which has one way or another killed a huge number of people or ruined their lives, as many inquiries attest.
The New Yorker article is interesting on these points (staffing and general competence).
My understanding is that the abnormally high death rate ceased once Letby was removed from duty.
This could be because she was the killer. Or it could be because the killer had framed her and was smart enough to stop at that point. It might even be coincidence.
It's unlikely to be because all the understaffing and organisational failures at the hospital were solved at that exact moment.
I can attest that falling in serious rapids is like being a terrified atheist sock in an out-of-control tumble dryer, except everything is intensely cold and wet
I've done some whitewater kayaking in Scotland, NZ and Norway and you're right - it's about the most exhilarating experience you can have. It's amazing to feel your heart punching the inside of your chest like that.
I have a friend who explores new rivers in Nepal etc. Takes some courage.
Have you fallen in any serious white water? It’s genuinely frightening - I now realise. I’ve only done it once before, hydrospeeding in the Pyrenees but it was 30 years ago and only lasted moments
This went on for several minutes which felt like hours. Or maybe it was only a minute. Still felt like hours. Constantly plunged underwater again - no idea of “up”
And I’m not a pussy when it comes to water sports. I’m one of the very few people in the world that’s done Antarctic kayaking which is phenomenally dangerous
I did it with the guy who invented Antarctic kayaking. I knew we were in trouble when I saw that HE was panicking. As the storm came in from Elephant Island
Yes, I have. Always under supervision from the kind of people who can go in and pull you out but still.
My worst moment wasn't white water, but in a sea kayak. Upside down, big swell, lots of kelp, couldn't get out for some reason. It's when the salt goes up your nose and you start to panic.
Yes, that’s why Antarctic kayaking is so dangerous. You’ve got the combo of ocean swell and storms PLUS icebergs and lethal cold
It is wonderful tho. Paddling by huge sapphire bergs. Landing on untouched coves for cognac and coffee and meeting penguins and weddels and albatross and sea elephants. Then seeing a sea leopard about 3 feet away broaching and just looking at you curiously. Whales
Focus group of voters in seats the Tories lost by More in Common for the Independent. Not much name recognition apart from Priti Patel.
'The least well known, former work and pensions secretary Mel Stride, who is favourite to be the first voted out on Wednesday, and was described as “dull” and “quite boring” with “a lack of real spark” by participants.
But the survey also found that ordinary voters strongly liked Mr Stride’s voice which many described as “being like David Attenborough” with some suggesting he had more of a future reading audiobooks than in politics.
While Dame Priti was the most recognised, this did not always work in her favour. Some remembered her for bullying allegations during her time as home secretary, others called her “divisive”.However, her reputation for straight talking and direct style was liked by participants...The candidate whose personality was most liked was Mr Cleverly, but many participants struggled to take him seriously..Meanwhile, Ms Badenoch was the one who was most likely to get both Reform and Lib Dem voters to switch back to the Tories.
A charity worker said: “She could bring some new fresh, young blood, slightly different to your typical public school boy Conservative leader.”
However, despite being in the cabinet her experience came under question. Others described her as “lacking in charisma” and “monotone” in her delivery..The candidate for the right has become former communities secretary Robert Jenrick, who has vowed to take the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
An engineer from Stockton said: “It felt like you could rely on him to deliver those things. It was the language he was using I thought was good.”But another participant said: “I quite like the policies of Robert Jenrick, but he didn’t come across as a likeable person who’s going to unite any party .”
This obsession with taking the UK out of the ECHR . It’s viewed as some panacea but opens up a host of other problems. At least Badenoch didn’t jump on this bandwagon.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
Michael Stone may well be innocent but I'm not sure he supports your point about photogenic women. We are surely all aware of the case and the doubts around his guilt and the strong suspicion Levi Bellfield was the murderer, no matter that "he is not a photogenic young female".
What both cases show is perhaps the legal system is too inflexible when it comes to handling possible miscarriages of justice, getting hung up on the question of new evidence since the trial rather than reassessing the wider question of guilt or innocence.
I do not know if Letby was guilty as charged. She might be. It would not surprise me if she killed some but not all of the children (which, when you think about it, is more or less the official verdict anyway). I do know the way evidence was presented is deeply troubling and unsafe. I also know it is plain stupid to rely on one set of lawyers being able to spot misconceptions and mistakes made inadvertently by another set of lawyers.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Do they actually call it 'Player of the game'? F***s sakes. It's a single sex game - can they not just say 'Woman of the match' in the womens' game?
Definitely in cricket:
Laughably, Cricinfo has gone back and retrospectively changed the title in previous scorecards too.
Er... they've surely just changed the template, and that gets populated with the historical data for old 'scorecards'?
It would have been trivial for them to not rewrite history, so it seems likely the change is intentional.
I doubt that's how Cricinfo populates the scoreboards: there won't be static HTML, there will likely be a Javascript scoreboard widget that pulls the information from a database. So if they make a change, it will backpopulate old games.
Indeed, that was my point. You've just put it much better.
I'm sure this is correct yet it is genuinely now producing wrong answers. Hundreds of players are now being awarded something they weren't awarded and denied something they were. Stokes wasn't POTM in 2019, he was MOTM. They would be horrified to get the numbers wrong, yet this is also wrong. And yes, I think it a great example of woke.
Its not a wrong answer.
Things get translated all the freaking time. I doubt in a Pakistan v India test its phrased as Man of the Match, yet that's still how you'd have wanted that showing as a few years ago when reading in English.
Nothing wrong with translating words and if the phrasing has changed but its the same thing, then saying that Stokes was player of the match is correct not incorrect if that's what its now called and its been translated into modern English.
Modern English? It was not 1542 for fucks sake, it was 2019. He was man of the match. It will say that in the trophy.
Its not 2019 anymore, its 2024.
If you're OK with translations, then what's the problem here?
The problem is solving something that isn't a problem. Men playing men's cricket were awarded many of the match since time immemorial. That is a fact. Your 'just a translation' is nothing of the sort. It doesn't need to be done. I have no beef with it being player of the match in the next test, if that's what people want. But don't rewrite history.
Its not rewriting history.
If player of the match is what its called today, and if it is the same prize, then that is what it is. That's perfectly legitimate continuity, things can be renamed and the renaming doesn't just affect things going forwards as it remains continuous.
Just as if Sri Lanka awarded a Man of the Match award in Sinhala rather than English you can use the English phrase, or someone there could read it in Sinhala rather than English.
It's bullshit, is what it is.
Your objection to a title being called what its called in the UK today?
Yes, it is.
It is bullshit that the title has been changed. Cricket is played in teams of men or teams of women. There was therefore zero issue with a 'man of the match' and its direct equivalent - 'woman of the match'. Changing both over to 'player' is anodyne and inelegant and smacks of cretins shitting the bed in a contest over who can be more politically correct.
Cricket is also played by teams of players.
There is therefore zero issue with a 'player of the match' which can be awarded consistently whether it be to a man or a woman.
Objecting to that is what is cretinous. Why care?
Firstly, it isn't me that needs to show that 'player of the match' is an objectionable phrase - that would only be necessary if I was the one trying to change an existing, very satisfactory phrase to something completely different. It is those arguing in favour of the change who need to prove why 'man of the match' is no longer acceptable, when everyone playing in the match is a man. If you have any thoughts on that, I'm happy to hear them.
It sounds even better because the two words also use assonance - they both use begin with the 'm-ă' sound, and they reduplicate the syllable length.
So you're taking something that sounds great, and swapping it for something shit, for what? That's why it's cretinous. If you want to enshittify something, let it be for an actual reason - let there be an actual woman playing cricket who was exluded by it.
You've been described here as one of our marmite members, but actually your views really do scream 'like me!'. Even with your avowed passion for neoliberal economics, you've never stepped up in arguments about that. Planning aside, you're really a complete PB pushover. It's quite sad, because the actual key to being liked isn't to have the same opinions as everything else, it's not to be an idiot.
I can attest that falling in serious rapids is like being a terrified atheist sock in an out-of-control tumble dryer, except everything is intensely cold and wet
I've done some whitewater kayaking in Scotland, NZ and Norway and you're right - it's about the most exhilarating experience you can have. It's amazing to feel your heart punching the inside of your chest like that.
I have a friend who explores new rivers in Nepal etc. Takes some courage.
Have you fallen in any serious white water? It’s genuinely frightening - I now realise. I’ve only done it once before, hydrospeeding in the Pyrenees but it was 30 years ago and only lasted moments
This went on for several minutes which felt like hours. Or maybe it was only a minute. Still felt like hours. Constantly plunged underwater again - no idea of “up”
And I’m not a pussy when it comes to water sports. I’m one of the very few people in the world that’s done Antarctic kayaking which is phenomenally dangerous
I did it with the guy who invented Antarctic kayaking. I knew we were in trouble when I saw that HE was panicking. As the storm came in from Elephant Island
Yes, I have. Always under supervision from the kind of people who can go in and pull you out but still.
My worst moment wasn't white water, but in a sea kayak. Upside down, big swell, lots of kelp, couldn't get out for some reason. It's when the salt goes up your nose and you start to panic.
Yes, that’s why Antarctic kayaking is so dangerous. You’ve got the combo of ocean swell and storms PLUS icebergs and lethal cold
It is wonderful tho. Paddling by huge sapphire bergs. Landing on untouched coves for cognac and coffee and meeting penguins and weddels and albatross and sea elephants. Then seeing a sea leopard about 3 feet away broaching and just looking at you curiously. Whales
But the fear factor. Ouch
The best bit about it is that the wildlife does not consider you a threat at all. I've had otters bumping up next to me, dolphins I could touch, guillemots whizzing over. One friend was a few metres away from an Orca up in Shetland.
We are so lucky with our coastline, rivers and lochs. We should do more to get people sailing and so on.
Comments
What Letby (for whom, I feel a great sadness, as I don't think she can be sane in any normal sense of the term) has not done is sack her team and appoint another either for the appeal or the retrial. If she were genuinely innocent, and if she knew there was exculpatory expert material they had declined to use, and good fresh evidence they had negligently not obtained she would in the circumstances already have done so.
Yes, it is.
There may be other evidence that is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't know, and I don't want to say if the evidence is sound or not, but that specific element is very objectionable.
Of course it would be nice to think that the editors of a US based magazine which was widely read in the UK would consider their public duty to not endanger forthcoming trials even if there was no legal comeback on them.
Acyn
@Acyn
Tim Walz continues to be very good at this
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1830700966942802417
I grant you it is an electric one.
Indeed one of the farcical elements is that many of these vehicles in the USA are subject to beneficial tax arrangements because they're not legally classed as cars - even there! They're legally classed as trucks and trucks have cheaper taxation because they're supposed to be used commercially, so people are buying trucks and using them as cars.
People in the UK don't drive trucks as cars as a general rule, aren't incentivised to do so by our tax system, and can require additional licencing requirements in order to even drive them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cdd7pzdr22jo
We have not been imagining it. (Although Leon has, as he hasn't actually been in the UK to experience it).
If Man of the Match translates to Player of the Match as the title in English today then that is what we call it.
Eg: The statistical evidence concerning X given by Prof Y should have been excluded from the prosecution evidence by the judge because it was methodologically flawed by reason of A, B and C.
On account of this the summing up/prosecution closing speech misled the jury as to the significance and weight of the statistical evidence against the defendant in ways D, E and F.
I am totally on board with the use of battery in women's sport, but still wish to keep batsman in mens. I note that third man has not yet been assaulted, although it will probably fall in time.
Player of the Match is the name today of the title and the award has continuity so that is its title today, whether you like it or not.
Nothing stopping you from using an old title, but titles/names get changed all the time, there's nothing novel or woke about it.
H.R. McMaster is pointing to Donald Trump for the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
https://newrepublic.com/post/185318/former-trump-adviser-mcmaster-taliban-afghanistan
Because you can't be bothered?
Because it offends you?
Or is there a legitimate reason?
Where do we draw the line on what gets translated and what does not?
I have no objection to translations. Whether that be translating from Urdu to English, or from an old title to a modern one.
I think the USA has moved to very large pickup trucks / SUVs - away from both station wagons and traditional 2 seat pick ups (think Uncle Jessie in the Dukes of Hazzard). The USA is distinctive in that their "Light Truck" category is exempt from many safety regulations - manufacturers love it because it saves them money and makes more profit. Drivers like them because it makes them feel safe, and the USA has a very individualistic road culture which mitigates against such drivers considering other people eg pedestrians. They also have issues around drivers only receiving perhaps 60% of training time as is normal in Europe, minimal equivalent of MOT tests etc.
Bart is correct that these are seriously bigger than SUV/Crew Cab Pickups sold in Europe.
In this move they are ahead of Europe; it goes back maybe 20-30 years or more, and pedestrian deaths in the USA started seriously rising in ~2009/10, and are up by 80% since.
I think it's fair to say that the increase in SUVs here is a parallel trend, but I don't think it is following the USA as such - though it is also motivated by a belief that it keeps the people inside the vehicle "safe", and also around things like if you need to carry 3 or 4 children, or want to pretend in your head that you are an explorer of the wild. Our SUVs and Crew Cab Pickups are also bigger - with lengths up to 5.5-6m which is up to 1m more than a big estate (mine is 4.86m long), and widths towards 2.2m overall. Example - Ford F150.
There are aspirational trends around mid-size and 'looks like' SUVs taking over from smaller cars, and general upsizing.
I'd say the European trend is more recent than the USA one - post-2000 - and the big vehicles are smaller. European ones are also subject to proper safety regs.
I think Bart is half mistaken on the safety, and rather treats the USA as black and Europe as white, whilst it is more like dark gray and light grey.
We do have data that in Europe / UK SUVs etc are more harmful to those outside the vehicle in collisions but it is nothing like the USA problem for the reasons above. We had data from Belgium some time ago, as you know, and we have correlated data from the UK on death rates being higher for pedestrians for more powerful and I think heavier vehicles.
IMO this IS a problem, and needs action. I think we will see similar, but less extreme, trends in Europe in the overall stats at some point in the next few years.
Carlton Reid wrote about the data we have:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/08/15/restrict-twice-as-deadly-suvs-in-u-k-cities-urge-transport-data-scientists/
Is that a fair summary?
Language has been evolving for thousands of years.
We've been updating what we call things for thousands of years.
HMRC u-turned on a change to this earlier this year when truck owners kicked up a fuss.
I’m reading “ Delizia: The Epic History of Italians and Their Food” by John Dickie, which is good, and very critical of narratives of tradition in Italian cuisine.
Kelly was then effectively threatened with losing everything, including his pension, for basically telling the truth to someone who he trusted, but shouldn't have.
Kind of goes with the term "drama" as opposed to "documentary".
The difference is aiui a matter of several k per annum, which tips people towards buying the big ones not the small ones.
I expect the new Govt to reverse this U-Turn.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/government-u-turn-over-double-cab-pick-up-tax-treatment
There is therefore zero issue with a 'player of the match' which can be awarded consistently whether it be to a man or a woman.
Objecting to that is what is cretinous. Why care?
And that’s more evidence against Letby. She was observed behaving suspiciously.
What was posted earlier was about August though. Which was 17C (for the CET) and a degree warmer than average, as well as drier.
Warmest and sunniest in the East, poor in the West.
My vineyard had an average max temp of 24C last month.
If they had not put on a defence, but simply said to the jury "it's the prosecution's burden, and they haven't met it", the lack of expert defence evidence might be easier to swallow. But having no experts and also allowing her to testify and be cross-examined, really does suggest they couldn't get what they wanted from their experts, or it would be so thin as to make cross-examintaion of them damaging to their case.
https://www.tarasportrafting.com/tara-rafting
And THEN I drove some of the wildest roads in Europe - in DURMITOR national park - hard by the ACCURSED MOUNTAINS and extraordinary Piva canyon as I motored up to the strangest medieval tombs in existence. The stecci
Then I came her to zabbajabbadaggle and I’m eating some Brie with a Bosnian wine and watching the last episode of 3 body problem
Thanks
They then looked at all the nurses’ rotas, which I think is what you’re asking for here. So, no problem.
Personally I think we need People Carriers back.
Why? What are you suggesting?
IMO one of the many things that need attention because Boris, Liz and Rishi did not dare touch it will be around both ICE vehicles and Electric vehicles. Fuel duty is low hanging fruit for immediate revenue - just withdraw the temporary cut and index link it as well will be a few billion per annum. But the VED system is in a mess and needs work. I think they will also want to have broken the back of the electric charging infra need.
Maybe. Who knows.
But it's pretty depressing how quickly we defer to authority. In the NHS ffs. Which has one way or another killed a huge number of people or ruined their lives, as many inquiries attest.
The New Yorker article is interesting on these points (staffing and general competence).
Harris 50.8% Trump 49.2%
https://www.activote.net/harris-lead-significantly-reduced/
I have a friend who explores new rivers in Nepal etc. Takes some courage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/cj62pwer4n2o
This went on for several minutes which felt like hours. Or maybe it was only a minute. Still felt like hours. Constantly plunged underwater again - no idea of “up”
And I’m not a pussy when it comes to water sports. I’m one of the very few people in the world that’s done Antarctic kayaking which is phenomenally dangerous
I did it with the guy who invented Antarctic kayaking. I knew we were in trouble when I saw that HE was panicking. As the storm came in from Elephant Island
This could be because she was the killer. Or it could be because the killer had framed her and was smart enough to stop at that point. It might even be coincidence.
It's unlikely to be because all the understaffing and organisational failures at the hospital were solved at that exact moment.
The defence, I presume, could have gone through the other deaths. I’ve never seen any analysis that shows how the determination of which deaths were suspicious was flawed. Vague “the NHS has problems” comments aren’t very convincing. Yes, the NHS has many problems, but they don’t explain this pattern of deaths, or all the other evidence.
I think the scandalous thing will be how management treated the whistle lowers who raised concerns over the spate of unexpected deaths.
If you want an NHS scandal that will be the place to look, and in keeping with a number of other NHS scandals.
Medical and Nursing serial killers are not unique to Britain, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cullen#:~:text=Charles Edmund Cullen
Indeed wikipedia includes this page of health worker serial killers across the globe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Medical_serial_killers
'The least well known, former work and pensions secretary Mel Stride, who is favourite to be the first voted out on Wednesday, and was described as “dull” and “quite boring” with “a lack of real spark” by participants.
But the survey also found that ordinary voters strongly liked Mr Stride’s voice which many described as “being like David Attenborough” with some suggesting he had more of a future reading audiobooks than in politics.
While Dame Priti was the most recognised, this did not always work in her favour. Some remembered her for bullying allegations during her time as home secretary, others called her “divisive”.However, her reputation for straight talking and direct style was liked by participants...The candidate whose personality was most liked was Mr Cleverly, but many participants struggled to take him seriously..Meanwhile, Ms Badenoch was the one who was most likely to get both Reform and Lib Dem voters to switch back to the Tories.
A charity worker said: “She could bring some new fresh, young blood, slightly different to your typical public school boy Conservative leader.”
However, despite being in the cabinet her experience came under question. Others described her as “lacking in charisma” and “monotone” in her delivery..The candidate for the right has become former communities secretary Robert Jenrick, who has vowed to take the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
An engineer from Stockton said: “It felt like you could rely on him to deliver those things. It was the language he was using I thought was good.”But another participant said: “I quite like the policies of Robert Jenrick, but he didn’t come across as a likeable person who’s going to unite any party .”
The sixth candidate is former security minister Tom Tugendhat who, like Mr Cleverly, won support because he is a former army officer and was seen as coming across as the “most prime ministerial”.But others thought him “too posh”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-leadership-candidates-kemi-badenoch-b2605745.html
My worst moment wasn't white water, but in a sea kayak. Upside down, big swell, lots of kelp, couldn't get out for some reason. It's when the salt goes up your nose and you start to panic.
What a shame he had to pull out - this version beats Trump again.
It is wonderful tho. Paddling by huge sapphire bergs. Landing on untouched coves for cognac and coffee and meeting penguins and weddels and albatross and sea elephants. Then seeing a sea leopard about 3 feet away broaching and just looking at you curiously. Whales
But the fear factor. Ouch
What both cases show is perhaps the legal system is too inflexible when it comes to handling possible miscarriages of justice, getting hung up on the question of new evidence since the trial rather than reassessing the wider question of guilt or innocence.
I do not know if Letby was guilty as charged. She might be. It would not surprise me if she killed some but not all of the children (which, when you think about it, is more or less the official verdict anyway). I do know the way evidence was presented is deeply troubling and unsafe. I also know it is plain stupid to rely on one set of lawyers being able to spot misconceptions and mistakes made inadvertently by another set of lawyers.
But since you ask, I will do you the unecessary favour. 'Man of the match' is a pleasing phrase because it is alliterative: https://writingcooperative.com/why-every-writer-should-use-alliteration-8ad77089d117
It sounds even better because the two words also use assonance - they both use begin with the 'm-ă' sound, and they reduplicate the syllable length.
So you're taking something that sounds great, and swapping it for something shit, for what? That's why it's cretinous. If you want to enshittify something, let it be for an actual reason - let there be an actual woman playing cricket who was exluded by it.
You've been described here as one of our marmite members, but actually your views really do scream 'like me!'. Even with your avowed passion for neoliberal economics, you've never stepped up in arguments about that. Planning aside, you're really a complete PB pushover. It's quite sad, because the actual key to being liked isn't to have the same opinions as everything else, it's not to be an idiot.
We are so lucky with our coastline, rivers and lochs. We should do more to get people sailing and so on.