"Guinness is raiding its reserves in Ireland to boost shipments to the UK, where a social media-fuelled surge in demand has left some pubs facing shortages."
A line of hand pumps dispensing decent ale, and yet people choose to drink that rubbish.
Takes all sorts.
I went to a pub in Soho in the summer which claimed to have perfected the Guinness. The landlord is a perfectionist. Went to great lengths to optimise distance from barrell to pump, cellar temperature, line clarity and so on. Now I like a pint of Guinness, and this was indeed a good pint of Guinness. But not much better than Guinness in 90% of pubs I have drunk Guinness in. I drank my Guinness, and moved on to try some of the bitters on tap. Which were also kept well. But as I left, I noticed every Herbert drinking outside in the street was drinking Guinness. Which they really wouldn't be were they not told the Guinness here was so good. The power of social media and the herdability of humans.
This is why cats will win in the end. Very tricky to herd.
There's some instagram thing going on with the kids to do with selfie drinking Guinness - hence the shortage.
The Dublin owners must be laughing all the way to the bank.
(The US has nicer neighbors than those three nations.)
From my own experience with Koreans and Japanese in London - many leave because of what they find is a stifling environment, especially for women.
The women say that the option of having a “traditional” marriage is the shitty end of the stick. So they don’t.
Perhaps there is a lesson in this? If you want people to do something, make it not-the-shittiest-option?
Traditional marriage is the backbone of society, if more got married and had children in their 20s again that would largely solve the below replacement level fertility rate by itself
Marriage only works when it is a partnership of equals. That’s a “traditional” marriage.
The pandemic was the biggest event, easily. It established state control over every aspect of life for months on end and had wide public support. Dissenters were condemned and overall it was a period of great shame both for the government and for the public who didn't do enough to rebel against lockdowns and vaccine mandates. I hope if something like this ever happens again people will ignore lockdowns completely and tell the government to go as stick their vaccine mandates up their arse.
It is troubling to me how easily we acquiesced to absolutely unthinkable terms of living for something that was never particularly deadly. People said that similar measures had been used previously, sure but those pandemics had a significantly higher death rate and measures were justified. COVID had a less than 0.1% death rate for healthy adults. The demands made in our lifestyles wasn't worth it.
The decision to “lock down” (an appalling term as the rules meant we could go out for food shopping and exercise) followed the pictures from Italy and elsewhere showing the medical services being seemingly overwhelmed. It was to prevent similar the measures were taken as a way of slowing the virus spread.
It was far too late of course as the virus was already well established probably as early as mid February.
The other main consideration, I suspect, was to slow the spread of the virus to the elderly population who were, it was clear, more susceptible to more serious health consequences and who would need hospitalisation at a time when oxygen supplies in particular were limited.
Once it became clear external transmission of the virus was very rare, we could and should have encouraged more outdoor activities. I don’t think we handled the “opening up” very well and unfortunately a second round of the virus in the autumn of 2020 was inevitable.
Where I do agree with you is the length and severity of the second lockdown - there was plenty of evidence Omicron didn’t have the severity of the initial virus and the second lockdown was questionable.
I argued at the time we had put health before wealth but the consequences of that decision are, arguably, still resonating through the economy and society.
I’m struggling with the question of the most significant event of the century so far. The events of September 11th 2001 were a continuation and escalation of the conflict with Islamic fundamentalism which arguably began with the Iranian Revolution.
That is now a global conflict as we’ve seen in Christchurch and has brought to the forefront questions of migration, cultural assimilation and identity which were previously below the radar to a degree.
To be difficult, I think we are still dealing with the consequences of the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism in 1989 which ended the post-1945 glacis but didn’t bring about the peaceful utopia some hoped.
I notice there's a new poll showing Labour with a 6 point lead. Despite the hysterics and wishful thinking on here I don't find it surprising. I'm sensing that Starmer after a shakey few months has started looking like the type of leader the British voter likes. Ruthless and decisive .
The Waspi women the farmers and the WFA all described as unpopular told a story. He and Reeves are going to do things their way. Anyone who is old enough to remember Thatcher will remember that this country does not like wimpish leaders whether or not they agree with their policies.
To compare Starmer to Mrs Thatcher is ludicrous. As ever Roger, your finger is never on the pulse.
The pandemic was the biggest event, easily. It established state control over every aspect of life for months on end and had wide public support. Dissenters were condemned and overall it was a period of great shame both for the government and for the public who didn't do enough to rebel against lockdowns and vaccine mandates. I hope if something like this ever happens again people will ignore lockdowns completely and tell the government to go as stick their vaccine mandates up their arse.
It is troubling to me how easily we acquiesced to absolutely unthinkable terms of living for something that was never particularly deadly. People said that similar measures had been used previously, sure but those pandemics had a significantly higher death rate and measures were justified. COVID had a less than 0.1% death rate for healthy adults. The demands made in our lifestyles wasn't worth it.
The decision to “lock down” (an appalling term as the rules meant we could go out for food shopping and exercise) followed the pictures from Italy and elsewhere showing the medical services being seemingly overwhelmed. It was to prevent similar the measures were taken as a way of slowing the virus spread.
It was far too late of course as the virus was already well established probably as early as mid February.
The other main consideration, I suspect, was to slow the spread of the virus to the elderly population who were, it was clear, more susceptible to more serious health consequences and who would need hospitalisation at a time when oxygen supplies in particular were limited.
Once it became clear external transmission of the virus was very rare, we could and should have encouraged more outdoor activities. I don’t think we handled the “opening up” very well and unfortunately a second round of the virus in the autumn of 2020 was inevitable.
Where I do agree with you is the length and severity of the second lockdown - there was plenty of evidence Omicron didn’t have the severity of the initial virus and the second lockdown was questionable.
I argued at the time we had put health before wealth but the consequences of that decision are, arguably, still resonating through the economy and society.
The second lockdown was for the Delta variant, which was quite dangerous. At the end of Jan 2021 we were having several thousand deaths per day, and rolling out vaccinations.
Omicron was much later in Dec 2021, and we did not "lock down" at all though there were some travel restrictions and face masking etc. I flew to Madeira in that December, and the Madeiran rules changed while we were mid-flight, though not too arduous, just requiring a test on arrival.
This is a good summary of the restrictions on a timeline:
I notice there's a new poll showing Labour with a 6 point lead. Despite the hysterics and wishful thinking on here I don't find it surprising. I'm sensing that Starmer after a shakey few months has started looking like the type of leader the British voter likes. Ruthless and decisive .
The Waspi women the farmers and the WFA all described as unpopular told a story. He and Reeves are going to do things their way. Anyone who is old enough to remember Thatcher will remember that this country does not like wimpish leaders whether or not they agree with their policies.
To compare Starmer to Mrs Thatcher is ludicrous. As ever Roger, your finger is never on the pulse.
I'd strongly argue that Thatcher evolved over her time in power, so that Thatcher was fairly different in (say) 1979, 1985, and 1990. Those people pro-Thatcher tend to think of her in the mid-1980s, having won the Falklands War and beaten the miners. Those people anti-Thatcher tend to think of the dark days of 1980 or 1981, with riots and social disharmony, or of 1990, when the peak of her powers were far behind her.
Which Thatcher is Starmer being compared to?
People are writing Starmer off after less than six months. Whilst I agree that his first few months were poor, with self-inflicted mistakes that reflect badly on him, there is still time for him, and his party, to recover. The question is if, and how, Starmer will evolve over the next few years.
“I was making more when I worked at the B&M up the road,” he says. But after paying council tax and bills, he was taking home less.
If you work you're expected to pay taxes and bills and have benefits withdrawn on top. If you don't work, you get full benefits and your bills paid.
People who don't work are acting rationally. People who only work 16 hours are acting rationally too.
Don't blame people who are being rational. Blame the system.
It's not a 'system', it's the actual law.
No monies are being paid unless they fall within the scope of the various Social Security Acts. The last major change was IDS's Universal Credit and even now that has not been fully implemented. So if you want a variation from the legislative framework you can't expect any changes for at least a decade.
....or you could increase wages allowing people to 'benefit' from working.
Quite some timing: a large road bridge in Brazil collapses whilst a councillor is making a report on the bridge's poor condition. To make matters worse, a tanker containing sulphuric acid went into the river, meaning there's significant pollution as well.
I notice there's a new poll showing Labour with a 6 point lead. Despite the hysterics and wishful thinking on here I don't find it surprising. I'm sensing that Starmer after a shakey few months has started looking like the type of leader the British voter likes. Ruthless and decisive .
The Waspi women the farmers and the WFA all described as unpopular told a story. He and Reeves are going to do things their way. Anyone who is old enough to remember Thatcher will remember that this country does not like wimpish leaders whether or not they agree with their policies.
To compare Starmer to Mrs Thatcher is ludicrous. As ever Roger, your finger is never on the pulse.
I'd strongly argue that Thatcher evolved over her time in power, so that Thatcher was fairly different in (say) 1979, 1985, and 1990. Those people pro-Thatcher tend to think of her in the mid-1980s, having won the Falklands War and beaten the miners. Those people anti-Thatcher tend to think of the dark days of 1980 or 1981, with riots and social disharmony, or of 1990, when the peak of her powers were far behind her.
Which Thatcher is Starmer being compared to?
People are writing Starmer off after less than six months. Whilst I agree that his first few months were poor, with self-inflicted mistakes that reflect badly on him, there is still time for him, and his party, to recover. The question is if, and how, Starmer will evolve over the next few years.
Well when you fuck the economy straight away with huge job losses as a result... it's something people will not forget.
I notice there's a new poll showing Labour with a 6 point lead. Despite the hysterics and wishful thinking on here I don't find it surprising. I'm sensing that Starmer after a shakey few months has started looking like the type of leader the British voter likes. Ruthless and decisive .
The Waspi women the farmers and the WFA all described as unpopular told a story. He and Reeves are going to do things their way. Anyone who is old enough to remember Thatcher will remember that this country does not like wimpish leaders whether or not they agree with their policies.
To compare Starmer to Mrs Thatcher is ludicrous. As ever Roger, your finger is never on the pulse.
I'd strongly argue that Thatcher evolved over her time in power, so that Thatcher was fairly different in (say) 1979, 1985, and 1990. Those people pro-Thatcher tend to think of her in the mid-1980s, having won the Falklands War and beaten the miners. Those people anti-Thatcher tend to think of the dark days of 1980 or 1981, with riots and social disharmony, or of 1990, when the peak of her powers were far behind her.
Which Thatcher is Starmer being compared to?
People are writing Starmer off after less than six months. Whilst I agree that his first few months were poor, with self-inflicted mistakes that reflect badly on him, there is still time for him, and his party, to recover. The question is if, and how, Starmer will evolve over the next few years.
Well when you fuck the economy straight away with huge job losses as a result... it's something people will not forget.
The first things Mrs Thatcher did were to spike inflation to more than 20 per cent and unemployment to 3,000,000. People apparently did forget. Did you forget?
The pandemic was the biggest event, easily. It established state control over every aspect of life for months on end and had wide public support. Dissenters were condemned and overall it was a period of great shame both for the government and for the public who didn't do enough to rebel against lockdowns and vaccine mandates. I hope if something like this ever happens again people will ignore lockdowns completely and tell the government to go as stick their vaccine mandates up their arse.
It is troubling to me how easily we acquiesced to absolutely unthinkable terms of living for something that was never particularly deadly. People said that similar measures had been used previously, sure but those pandemics had a significantly higher death rate and measures were justified. COVID had a less than 0.1% death rate for healthy adults. The demands made in our lifestyles wasn't worth it.
The decision to “lock down” (an appalling term as the rules meant we could go out for food shopping and exercise) followed the pictures from Italy and elsewhere showing the medical services being seemingly overwhelmed. It was to prevent similar the measures were taken as a way of slowing the virus spread.
It was far too late of course as the virus was already well established probably as early as mid February.
The other main consideration, I suspect, was to slow the spread of the virus to the elderly population who were, it was clear, more susceptible to more serious health consequences and who would need hospitalisation at a time when oxygen supplies in particular were limited.
Once it became clear external transmission of the virus was very rare, we could and should have encouraged more outdoor activities. I don’t think we handled the “opening up” very well and unfortunately a second round of the virus in the autumn of 2020 was inevitable.
Where I do agree with you is the length and severity of the second lockdown - there was plenty of evidence Omicron didn’t have the severity of the initial virus and the second lockdown was questionable.
I argued at the time we had put health before wealth but the consequences of that decision are, arguably, still resonating through the economy and society.
The second lockdown was for the Delta variant, which was quite dangerous. At the end of Jan 2021 we were having several thousand deaths per day, and rolling out vaccinations.
Omicron was much later in Dec 2021, and we did not "lock down" at all though there were some travel restrictions and face masking etc. I flew to Madeira in that December, and the Madeiran rules changed while we were mid-flight, though not too arduous, just requiring a test on arrival.
This is a good summary of the restrictions on a timeline:
Thanks @Foxy. I sit corrected - it’s amazing how quickly some key events get forgotten (at least by me). My recollection of the second lockdown close to Christmas was the huge uncertainty and confusion and I’d forgotten the tiers and what they meant.
The pandemic was the biggest event, easily. It established state control over every aspect of life for months on end and had wide public support. Dissenters were condemned and overall it was a period of great shame both for the government and for the public who didn't do enough to rebel against lockdowns and vaccine mandates. I hope if something like this ever happens again people will ignore lockdowns completely and tell the government to go as stick their vaccine mandates up their arse.
It is troubling to me how easily we acquiesced to absolutely unthinkable terms of living for something that was never particularly deadly. People said that similar measures had been used previously, sure but those pandemics had a significantly higher death rate and measures were justified. COVID had a less than 0.1% death rate for healthy adults. The demands made in our lifestyles wasn't worth it.
The decision to “lock down” (an appalling term as the rules meant we could go out for food shopping and exercise) followed the pictures from Italy and elsewhere showing the medical services being seemingly overwhelmed. It was to prevent similar the measures were taken as a way of slowing the virus spread.
It was far too late of course as the virus was already well established probably as early as mid February.
The other main consideration, I suspect, was to slow the spread of the virus to the elderly population who were, it was clear, more susceptible to more serious health consequences and who would need hospitalisation at a time when oxygen supplies in particular were limited.
Once it became clear external transmission of the virus was very rare, we could and should have encouraged more outdoor activities. I don’t think we handled the “opening up” very well and unfortunately a second round of the virus in the autumn of 2020 was inevitable.
Where I do agree with you is the length and severity of the second lockdown - there was plenty of evidence Omicron didn’t have the severity of the initial virus and the second lockdown was questionable.
I argued at the time we had put health before wealth but the consequences of that decision are, arguably, still resonating through the economy and society.
The second lockdown was for the Delta variant, which was quite dangerous. At the end of Jan 2021 we were having several thousand deaths per day, and rolling out vaccinations.
Omicron was much later in Dec 2021, and we did not "lock down" at all though there were some travel restrictions and face masking etc. I flew to Madeira in that December, and the Madeiran rules changed while we were mid-flight, though not too arduous, just requiring a test on arrival.
This is a good summary of the restrictions on a timeline:
Thanks @Foxy. I sit corrected - it’s amazing how quickly some key events get forgotten (at least by me). My recollection of the second lockdown close to Christmas was the huge uncertainty and confusion and I’d forgotten the tiers and what they meant.
I think a lot of the events between March 2020 and Jan 2022 get conflated as lockdown, without distinction as to the level of restrictions.
The second lockdown of Jan to March 2021 had the peak deaths and peak strain on hospitals, but was also the time that mass vaccination was underway. While dark and gloomy weather made it worse, there was the light at the end of the tunnel because of the vaccination programme. It was not without purpose.
In Dec 2021 there was a bit of panic over Omicron, before it became clear that it was a less severe variant. There were mass cancellations of events, but that was voluntary not by government edict. I think this did hospitality and retail a lot of damage, but illustrates that not having restrictions did not mean no adverse impacts.
I rather wish that the enquiry concentrated more on what worked and what didn't in terms of public health and NHS response rather than tittle tattle over emails and office parties. That's where the analysis is needed for forward planning.
Comments
It was far too late of course as the virus was already well established probably as early as mid February.
The other main consideration, I suspect, was to slow the spread of the virus to the elderly population who were, it was clear, more susceptible to more serious health consequences and who would need hospitalisation at a time when oxygen supplies in particular were limited.
Once it became clear external transmission of the virus was very rare, we could and should have encouraged more outdoor activities. I don’t think we handled the “opening up” very well and unfortunately a second round of the virus in the autumn of 2020 was inevitable.
Where I do agree with you is the length and severity of the second lockdown - there was plenty of evidence Omicron didn’t have the severity of the initial virus and the second lockdown was questionable.
I argued at the time we had put health before wealth but the consequences of that decision are, arguably, still resonating through the economy and society.
I’m struggling with the question of the most significant event of the century so far. The events of September 11th 2001 were a continuation and escalation of the conflict with Islamic fundamentalism which arguably began with the Iranian Revolution.
That is now a global conflict as we’ve seen in Christchurch and has brought to the forefront questions of migration, cultural assimilation and identity which were previously below the radar to a degree.
To be difficult, I think we are still dealing with the consequences of the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism in 1989 which ended the post-1945 glacis but didn’t bring about the peaceful utopia some hoped.
Omicron was much later in Dec 2021, and we did not "lock down" at all though there were some travel restrictions and face masking etc. I flew to Madeira in that December, and the Madeiran rules changed while we were mid-flight, though not too arduous, just requiring a test on arrival.
This is a good summary of the restrictions on a timeline:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/data-visualisation/timeline-coronavirus-lockdowns
Which Thatcher is Starmer being compared to?
People are writing Starmer off after less than six months. Whilst I agree that his first few months were poor, with self-inflicted mistakes that reflect badly on him, there is still time for him, and his party, to recover. The question is if, and how, Starmer will evolve over the next few years.
No monies are being paid unless they fall within the scope of the various Social Security Acts. The last major change was IDS's Universal Credit and even now that has not been fully implemented. So if you want a variation from the legislative framework you can't expect any changes for at least a decade.
....or you could increase wages allowing people to 'benefit' from working.
https://x.com/BNONews/status/1870946747918504338
I've just slipped a twenty-quid note in the milkman's Christmas card.
NEW THREAD
However, three other transactions were all contactless.
Horses for courses.
The second lockdown of Jan to March 2021 had the peak deaths and peak strain on hospitals, but was also the time that mass vaccination was underway. While dark and gloomy weather made it worse, there was the light at the end of the tunnel because of the vaccination programme. It was not without purpose.
In Dec 2021 there was a bit of panic over Omicron, before it became clear that it was a less severe variant. There were mass cancellations of events, but that was voluntary not by government edict. I think this did hospitality and retail a lot of damage, but illustrates that not having restrictions did not mean no adverse impacts.
I rather wish that the enquiry concentrated more on what worked and what didn't in terms of public health and NHS response rather than tittle tattle over emails and office parties. That's where the analysis is needed for forward planning.
Let’s be grateful for small mercies.
This is the fault of politicians not the people.