The 16/1 looks fair value. Given the possibility of extreme turbulence you can easily imagine how he might be brought back in that timeframe to help steady the ship. It looks more like a 5/1 shot to me given that he has apparently indicated that he is interested.
Are you assuming May or someone else as leader when considering it to be more like a 5/1 shot?
Yes.
The bet is now up, was able to boost it to 18-1.
Cameron back in the Cabinet? It looks like someone is flying a kite, else an agreement would have been reached behind closed doors. Would Theresa May, who is hardly secure in Number 10, really want to anoint the king across the water?
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
"diversity" - we have women on our banknotes at the moment so I am reading this (because I am quite green on it) that this means homosexual/mental health diversity = Turing.
I have a lot more respect for those who backed Leave thinking there would be no problems, no matter how wrong that was, and even for those who backed it merely claiming there would be no problems (though that was wrong), than those who claim privately or publicly that they didn't really want the thing they wanted at all. People taking a calculated risk or simply not thinking it was much of a risk might well be wrong - I certainly underestimated matters - and people will criticise that, but those who backed taking the risk without even wanting the risk? That truly is not right.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
"diversity" - we have women on our banknotes at the moment so I am reading this (because I am quite green on it) that this means homosexual/mental health diversity = Turing.
Possibly. Either would be good choices - but because of their achievements not because of characteristics they couldn’t change. And, frankly, as someone who has had close family members suffer from serious mental illness, I don’t think the latter is something to be celebrated. If Turing suffered from such illness because of the way he was treated, that is deplorable. But it is his achievements which make him worthy of honour.
The 16/1 looks fair value. Given the possibility of extreme turbulence you can easily imagine how he might be brought back in that timeframe to help steady the ship. It looks more like a 5/1 shot to me given that he has apparently indicated that he is interested.
Are you assuming May or someone else as leader when considering it to be more like a 5/1 shot?
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
"diversity" - we have women on our banknotes at the moment so I am reading this (because I am quite green on it) that this means homosexual/mental health diversity = Turing.
Possibly. Either would be good choices - but because of their achievements not because of characteristics they couldn’t change. And, frankly, as someone who has had close family members suffer from serious mental illness, I don’t think the latter is something to be celebrated. If Turing suffered from such illness because of the way he was treated, that is deplorable. But it is his achievements which make him worthy of honour.
Yes but we're in that zone atm and he did say "diversity" (he being Mark Carney).
Obviously I’d eat pineapple on pizza every day if it meant Dave becoming PM again but it ain’t happening.
His time has been and gone, sadly.
Is he getting bored shooting foxes ?
He traps them first, then ties them down and watches them being eaten alive by a labrador on coke. Makes his kids watch too. Distilled evil and a typical Tory.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks poured by a bartender.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
Maybe. The problem for punters is that the Bank of England is not limited to the names suggested by Ladbrokes.
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Ladbrokes has: Dorothy Hodgkin 3/1 Ada Lovelace 4/1 Alan Turing 4/1 Stephen Hawking 5/1 Rosalind Franklin 6/1 James Clerk Maxwell 16/1 Kathleen Lonsdale 16/1 Ernest Rutherford 25/1 Frank Whittle 25/1
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
On the £50 note, I'd have thought Ada Lovelace a rather odd choice. Putting a gambling addict on a high denomination banknote strikes me as a bit "brave".
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
On the £50 note, I'd have thought Ada Lovelace a rather odd choice. Putting a gambling addict on a high denomination banknote strikes me as a bit "brave".
They could delay the implementation for six months?
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
You may be an ideologue who wants to condemn others but that doesn't make you right.
There is a world of difference between someone going to their 'local' for a pint or two, a glass of wine, or 25 or 50ml of spirits and mixer and a chat with their friends and local community . . . or an alcoholic sat at home by himself downing a litre bottle of spirits, multiple whole bottles of wine, or a couple of litres of big bottles of white cider.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that the scientists who've looked into this and found the evidence are wrong. That's why the Royal Society for Public Health is saying what they're saying, its evidence-based research. Try it sometime.
It could well work, he rather conspicuously has NOT come out with either ultra-remainers or ultra-Brexiteers post Brexit (Mildly in favour now like the gov't iirc). Nor has he threatened to put May into his freezer !
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
I could find lots of reports to suggest that it is, there will be lots of studies to suggest the opposite. What's undoubtedly the case is that a large proportion of one-moderate drinkers become heavy drinkers, seriously endangering their health, and that this absolutely has to outweigh any supposed wellbeing benefits associated with conviviality, meaning that the number of pubs on a street shouldn't count as a positive factor in some silly headline-grabbing piece of analysis.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
"diversity" - we have women on our banknotes at the moment so I am reading this (because I am quite green on it) that this means homosexual/mental health diversity = Turing.
Possibly. Either would be good choices - but because of their achievements not because of characteristics they couldn’t change. And, frankly, as someone who has had close family members suffer from serious mental illness, I don’t think the latter is something to be celebrated. If Turing suffered from such illness because of the way he was treated, that is deplorable. But it is his achievements which make him worthy of honour.
Yes but we're in that zone atm and he did say "diversity" (he being Mark Carney).
Well, in my view, most people who use the term “diversity” have not got the first clue what it really means, what it should mean and, why properly understood and used, it’s a good thing.
It’s treated as choosing a box of Smarties. Oh, look! Lots of different colours! How lovely! (aka “diverse”). When in fact they’re all the bloody same. Sickly sweet and en masse bad for you.
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
Big G I wouldn't take an exchange on an internet chatroom (even one as illustrious, influential and important as PB [hi Mike]) as a meaningful attack on you or your beliefs. It is of course entirely up to HYUFD to make all kinds of assertions based upon his beliefs, but unless I am mistaken, you have been alive longer than him so you were a Tory BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN OR AT LEAST HAD A POLITICAL OPINION and hence when he was in the womb, and thereafter when he was asking for sherbert dabs at the sweet shop, You Were a Tory.
Always remember that; you outrank him.
+1
I’ve said this before but BigG seems to me to represent the best sort of Conservatism. The Tory party could do with having more people like him in it.
They could - and preferably a couple of generations of younger versions, too. No offence intended, BigG.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
"diversity" - we have women on our banknotes at the moment so I am reading this (because I am quite green on it) that this means homosexual/mental health diversity = Turing.
Possibly. Either would be good choices - but because of their achievements not because of characteristics they couldn’t change. And, frankly, as someone who has had close family members suffer from serious mental illness, I don’t think the latter is something to be celebrated. If Turing suffered from such illness because of the way he was treated, that is deplorable. But it is his achievements which make him worthy of honour.
Yes but we're in that zone atm and he did say "diversity" (he being Mark Carney).
Well, in my view, most people who use the term “diversity” have not got the first clue what it really means, what it should mean and, why properly understood and used, it’s a good thing.
It’s treated as choosing a box of Smarties. Oh, look! Lots of different colours! How lovely! (aka “diverse”). When in fact they’re all the bloody same. Sickly sweet and en masse bad for you...
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Doubt she passes the “widely recognised” criterion - Turing easily does, Lovelace possibly.
James Clerk Maxwell is the "top" scientist on the Ladbrokes list but is not well-known. Hawking is the most famous and ticks the diversity box as well as any. But at the prices, I am not really tempted for ante-post bets. If the announcement were tomorrow, I'd have a punt.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
I could find lots of reports to suggest that it is, there will be lots of studies to suggest the opposite. What's undoubtedly the case is that a large proportion of one-moderate drinkers become heavy drinkers, seriously endangering their health, and that this absolutely has to outweigh any supposed wellbeing benefits associated with conviviality, meaning that the number of pubs on a street shouldn't count as a positive factor in some silly headline-grabbing piece of analysis.
No it doesn't have to outweigh it. The fact a minority become problematic drinkers no more outweighs the majority that don't than a minority abusing anything else outweighs the positives elsewhere. Off-licences are the problems not pubs and all the science shows that. Your dogma is neither here nor there.
I've got the Royal Socty for Public Health and Oxford University on my side. You've got your own suppositions, try looking into some science.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
For anyone who wants to see the greatest band ever, The Specials are touring next year in April and May. The tour will sellout quickly and this may the last chance to see them.
I have seen them twice recently, and they are still very good live.
The best gig that I have been to recently was Nick Masons Saucerful of Secrets, playing pre Darkside Floyd. Absolutely brilliant and a great vibe. They also have put on some new dates in the spring.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
You may be an ideologue who wants to condemn others but that doesn't make you right.
There is a world of difference between someone going to their 'local' for a pint or two, a glass of wine, or 25 or 50ml of spirits and mixer and a chat with their friends and local community . . . or an alcoholic sat at home by himself downing a litre bottle of spirits, multiple whole bottles of wine, or a couple of litres of big bottles of white cider.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that the scientists who've looked into this and found the evidence are wrong. That's why the Royal Society for Public Health is saying what they're saying, its evidence-based research. Try it sometime.
Combining data from three separate studies - a questionnaire-based study of pub clientele, observing conversational behaviour in pubs, and a national survey by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) – the researchers looked at whether the frequency of alcohol consumption or the type of venue affected peoples’ social experiences and wellbeing.
Hurrah for science!
If that's the best that google can do for you, perhaps this digression has run its course.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
Big G I wouldn't take an exchange on an internet chatroom (even one as illustrious, influential and important as PB [hi Mike]) as a meaningful attack on you or your beliefs. It is of course entirely up to HYUFD to make all kinds of assertions based upon his beliefs, but unless I am mistaken, you have been alive longer than him so you were a Tory BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN OR AT LEAST HAD A POLITICAL OPINION and hence when he was in the womb, and thereafter when he was asking for sherbert dabs at the sweet shop, You Were a Tory.
Always remember that; you outrank him.
+1
I’ve said this before but BigG seems to me to represent the best sort of Conservatism. The Tory party could do with having more people like him in it.
They could - and preferably a couple of generations of younger versions, too. No offence intended, BigG.
Can I just say how much I enjoyed the link to the Dylan article yesterday. The early version of tangled up in blue was just superb. Thanks very much for the link.
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
Big G I wouldn't take an exchange on an internet chatroom (even one as illustrious, influential and important as PB [hi Mike]) as a meaningful attack on you or your beliefs. It is of course entirely up to HYUFD to make all kinds of assertions based upon his beliefs, but unless I am mistaken, you have been alive longer than him so you were a Tory BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN OR AT LEAST HAD A POLITICAL OPINION and hence when he was in the womb, and thereafter when he was asking for sherbert dabs at the sweet shop, You Were a Tory.
Always remember that; you outrank him.
+1
I’ve said this before but BigG seems to me to represent the best sort of Conservatism. The Tory party could do with having more people like him in it.
They could - and preferably a couple of generations of younger versions, too. No offence intended, BigG.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
You may be an ideologue who wants to condemn others but that doesn't make you right.
There is a world of difference between someone going to their 'local' for a pint or two, a glass of wine, or 25 or 50ml of spirits and mixer and a chat with their friends and local community . . . or an alcoholic sat at home by himself downing a litre bottle of spirits, multiple whole bottles of wine, or a couple of litres of big bottles of white cider.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that the scientists who've looked into this and found the evidence are wrong. That's why the Royal Society for Public Health is saying what they're saying, its evidence-based research. Try it sometime.
Combining data from three separate studies - a questionnaire-based study of pub clientele, observing conversational behaviour in pubs, and a national survey by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) – the researchers looked at whether the frequency of alcohol consumption or the type of venue affected peoples’ social experiences and wellbeing.
Hurrah for science!
If that's the best that google can do for you, perhaps this digression has run its course.
Yes hurrah for science. The researchers know what they're talking about unlike you it seems. If you're an alcoholic the only solution is complete and total abstinence, there is no safe quantity of alcohol for an alcoholic. But for the rest of society pubs are a good thing.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
See also exercise.
You're better off with regular exercise than regular alcohol methinks.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
See also exercise.
You're better off with regular exercise than regular alcohol methinks.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
I remember when the media highlighted the dangers of excessive water consumpion in a very short space of time with the death of Leah Betts.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
See also exercise.
You're better off with regular exercise than regular alcohol methinks.
Combine the two. Walk to your local.
Hah ! My drinks cabinet at home is chock full right now, since me and my other half never really drink at home.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
Big G I wouldn't take an exchange on an internet chatroom (even one as illustrious, influential and important as PB [hi Mike]) as a meaningful attack on you or your beliefs. It is of course entirely up to HYUFD to make all kinds of assertions based upon his beliefs, but unless I am mistaken, you have been alive longer than him so you were a Tory BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN OR AT LEAST HAD A POLITICAL OPINION and hence when he was in the womb, and thereafter when he was asking for sherbert dabs at the sweet shop, You Were a Tory.
Always remember that; you outrank him.
+1
I’ve said this before but BigG seems to me to represent the best sort of Conservatism. The Tory party could do with having more people like him in it.
Agreed. Big_G represents the best of conservatism imo. Ditto, in a different way, TSE.
You could almost believe that the Conservative party was a sensible, serious party which held the interests of the country as a whole at it's heart.
Then you see something like the kicking of the FOBT cap down the road and you realise it's still driven by greed and self-interest. Sadly.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
It always used to annoy me that the advice for pregnant women was just to have a small amount of alcohol. There are illegal drugs that are less harmful than alcohol, admittedly I don't know in regards to pregnancy, but people would have thought it was crazy if it was just one line or just one pill or some small amount of some other illegal drug.
Alcohol is so ingrained in our society that we almost try to pretend it is less unhealthy than it is.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
I remember when the media highlighted the dangers of excessive water consumpion in a very short space of time with the death of Leah Betts.
In her case it appears to have been a combination of the water and the drug a the latter inhibited her ability to urinate.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
I remember when the media highlighted the dangers of excessive water consumpion in a very short space of time with the death of Leah Betts.
I had a colleague who had heard the media advice to drink 8 glasses* of water a day and took it as an instruction to drink 8 litres of water and was trying to get it all in as quick as she could early on so she didn't forget. She didn't believe me at first when I said not only had she misunderstood but drinking 8 litres of water quickly would be very dangerous.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
Big G I wouldn't take an exchange on an internet chatroom (even one as illustrious, influential and important as PB [hi Mike]) as a meaningful attack on you or your beliefs. It is of course entirely up to HYUFD to make all kinds of assertions based upon his beliefs, but unless I am mistaken, you have been alive longer than him so you were a Tory BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN OR AT LEAST HAD A POLITICAL OPINION and hence when he was in the womb, and thereafter when he was asking for sherbert dabs at the sweet shop, You Were a Tory.
Always remember that; you outrank him.
+1
I’ve said this before but BigG seems to me to represent the best sort of Conservatism. The Tory party could do with having more people like him in it.
Agreed. Big_G represents the best of conservatism imo. Ditto, in a different way, TSE.
You could almost believe that the Conservative party was a sensible, serious party which held the interests of the country as a whole at it's heart.
Then you see something like the kicking of the FOBT cap down the road and you realise it's still driven by greed and self-interest. Sadly.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Doubt she passes the “widely recognised” criterion - Turing easily does, Lovelace possibly.
Was Elizabeth Fry widely recognised?
Maxwell should be a good shout along with the names already mentioned.
Its 'widely recognised' not 'Hollywood famous' so I suspect we are being too strict with that criteria. Maxwell undoubtedly the best scientist of the bunch but does he have a compelling backstory.... I nominated Henry Moseley; an excellent scientist and his volunteering to fight in WW1 and subsequent death in combat ties in with the current WW1 commemorations. He can also be tied in with Rutherford.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
You may be an ideologue who wants to condemn others but that doesn't make you right.
There is a world of difference between someone going to their 'local' for a pint or two, a glass of wine, or 25 or 50ml of spirits and mixer and a chat with their friends and local community . . . or an alcoholic sat at home by himself downing a litre bottle of spirits, multiple whole bottles of wine, or a couple of litres of big bottles of white cider.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that the scientists who've looked into this and found the evidence are wrong. That's why the Royal Society for Public Health is saying what they're saying, its evidence-based research. Try it sometime.
Combining data from three separate studies - a questionnaire-based study of pub clientele, observing conversational behaviour in pubs, and a national survey by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) – the researchers looked at whether the frequency of alcohol consumption or the type of venue affected peoples’ social experiences and wellbeing.
Hurrah for science!
If that's the best that google can do for you, perhaps this digression has run its course.
Life is meant to be enjoyed. Alcohol adds to the enjoyment of life.
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Historically it is winning the centre ground (as Cameron and Blair did) that delivers majorities. Whether that remains true in the next election is not yet clear, but If Tories want to win, they should listen to BG.
Thatcher and Attlee moved the centre ground their way and won
Arguably the centre ground moved to Attlee, who couldn't keep hold of it and lost in 1951, whereas Thatcher more actively moved the centre ground and so won twice more.
Given Theresa May's conference announcements of an end to austerity and permitting councils to borrow to build houses, Corbyn managed to move the centre ground and lose. Impressive, in a way.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
Probably the best poison in the world.
Oxygen is highly carcinogenic. Try not breathing and see if your health improves....
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?
One that knows the facts and isn't a blinded ideologue. Alcohol in moderation is good for you, social interactions are good for you.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks by a bartender.
Canard klaxon.
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
But is it - in any quantity - bad for you?
“It’s the dose that makes the poison”.
Indeed in enough dosage water is bad for you. It's possible to die from drinking too much water in too short a time (and it has happened) but that doesn't make it bad for you.
I remember when the media highlighted the dangers of excessive water consumpion in a very short space of time with the death of Leah Betts.
In her case it appears to have been a combination of the water and the drug a the latter inhibited her ability to urinate.
Probably would have been alright if she'd just say consumed the same amount of water as a person perhaps doing vigourous exercise. Tragic
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Doubt she passes the “widely recognised” criterion - Turing easily does, Lovelace possibly.
Was Elizabeth Fry widely recognised?
Maxwell should be a good shout along with the names already mentioned.
Its 'widely recognised' not 'Hollywood famous' so I suspect we are being too strict with that criteria. Maxwell undoubtedly the best scientist of the bunch but does he have a compelling backstory.... I nominated Henry Moseley; an excellent scientist and his volunteering to fight in WW1 and subsequent death in combat ties in with the current WW1 commemorations. He can also be tied in with Rutherford.
I think there is a case for ranking Maxwell in the first tier of British Scientists alongside Newton and Darwin. Then he doesn't need a compelling backstory of the sort that makes Franklin, Turing, etc, worthy candidates.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
Maybe. The problem for punters is that the Bank of England is not limited to the names suggested by Ladbrokes.
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Ladbrokes has: Dorothy Hodgkin 3/1 Ada Lovelace 4/1 Alan Turing 4/1 Stephen Hawking 5/1 Rosalind Franklin 6/1 James Clerk Maxwell 16/1 Kathleen Lonsdale 16/1 Ernest Rutherford 25/1 Frank Whittle 25/1
Shadsy has cut Hawking to 4/1 and lengthened Ada Lovelace to 5/1 (boosts might be available). I wonder if this is a reaction to the announcement of the advisory panel.
Clearly whatever Hammond has said, there are going to be any number of Councils going for above-inflation Council Tax increases along with service cuts and some of the latter may be quite drastic in terms of closing facilities such as Children's Centres and Libraries. Those who use such services might consider the claims that austerity is over to be a tad hollow.
It's also worth remembering the Conservatives are due to defend in excess of 5,000 seats at next year's Council elections (subject to Councils merging and boundaries being redrawn).
F1: decided to put a tiny sum on Gasly at 28 (26 plus boost) each way to win in 2019. That's fifth the odds top 3.
Reasoning is thus: the Renault engine appears, certainly Red Bull thinks, some way off the top two but also half as far behind the Honda.
Correcting for reliability failures (assuming one DNF per driver rather than the higher real numbers) gives the following points tallies: 238 Ricciardo 259 Verstappen
But those extra points (a total of 10 additional points finishes) wouldn't come in a vacuum. They'd come at the expense of Hamilton and Vettel (and their team mates even more so). Certainly, Red Bull's drivers would be top 4. And they may well have pushed Vettel below Ricciardo.
Two big things may change next year. If the Honda really is halfway between the Renault and Mercedes/Ferrari, then that's a huge pace increase. The Red Bull will be competitive where this season it was in No Man's Land, and at circuits like Monaco and Mexico it'll be damned hard to beat. Reliability is crucial, though. If that remains as bad as this year, the pace advantage could be undone. If it improves to Ferrari or Mercedes levels, Red Bull perhaps should be favourite.
Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.
One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.
Just as well the chances aren't against him then. Boris /thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
You are at it again. Conhome is noas leader
You may not accept at
You do have a knack of talking utte You would have the party led by a group that would destroy it
well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
Remember winning election is about getting people to vote FOR you. Not chasing them away in the pursuit of purity
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
Many conservatives voted for Blair in those years. Sometimes a government is exhausted and in those circumstances blind loyalty leads into a cul de sac
I have a great deal of respect for the way you express your views - even when we disagree. I am a little intrigued by your suggestion that 'Many Conservatives voted for Blair' statement. Undoubtedly that was true of many former Tory voters , but that surely has to be distinguished from how Tory party members behaved? To my mind such a person who openly declared support for another party would be immediately vulnerable to expulsion! I was a Labour party member from 1970 - end of 1996 when I ceased to renew my membership. I did not vote Labour at the General Elections of 1997 - 2010 inclusive , and during that period voted Socialist Labour - 1997 - LibDem 2001 & 2005 - Green 2010.. Had I remained a party member, I would have expected to be expelled. I recall the immediate aftermath of the Greenwich by election in February 1987. On a TV programme a TGWU official who was also a member of the Labour GMC in that constituency revealed that he had voted for Rosie Barnes - the SDP winner. I was outraged , and trust that he was forced to stand down from that position thereafter.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Doubt she passes the “widely recognised” criterion - Turing easily does, Lovelace possibly.
Was Elizabeth Fry widely recognised?
Maxwell should be a good shout along with the names already mentioned.
Its 'widely recognised' not 'Hollywood famous' so I suspect we are being too strict with that criteria. Maxwell undoubtedly the best scientist of the bunch but does he have a compelling backstory.... I nominated Henry Moseley; an excellent scientist and his volunteering to fight in WW1 and subsequent death in combat ties in with the current WW1 commemorations. He can also be tied in with Rutherford.
I think there is a case for ranking Maxwell in the first tier of British Scientists alongside Newton and Darwin. Then he doesn't need a compelling backstory of the sort that makes Franklin, Turing, etc, worthy candidates.
You're right that Maxwell is up there with Newton but I suspect the choice will not be based simply on scientific merit.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
Maybe. The problem for punters is that the Bank of England is not limited to the names suggested by Ladbrokes.
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Ladbrokes has: Dorothy Hodgkin 3/1 Ada Lovelace 4/1 Alan Turing 4/1 Stephen Hawking 5/1 Rosalind Franklin 6/1 James Clerk Maxwell 16/1 Kathleen Lonsdale 16/1 Ernest Rutherford 25/1 Frank Whittle 25/1
Shadsy has cut Hawking to 4/1 and lengthened Ada Lovelace to 5/1 (boosts might be available). I wonder if this is a reaction to the announcement of the advisory panel.
Maxwell was the giant on whose shoulders Einstein stood.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
The fact that Hammond mentioned Lovelace in his Budget speech may, possibly, be a clue. I didn’t hear him mention Turing but I may have missed that.
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Doubt she passes the “widely recognised” criterion - Turing easily does, Lovelace possibly.
Was Elizabeth Fry widely recognised?
Maxwell should be a good shout along with the names already mentioned.
Its 'widely recognised' not 'Hollywood famous' so I suspect we are being too strict with that criteria. Maxwell undoubtedly the best scientist of the bunch but does he have a compelling backstory.... I nominated Henry Moseley; an excellent scientist and his volunteering to fight in WW1 and subsequent death in combat ties in with the current WW1 commemorations. He can also be tied in with Rutherford.
I think there is a case for ranking Maxwell in the first tier of British Scientists alongside Newton and Darwin. Then he doesn't need a compelling backstory of the sort that makes Franklin, Turing, etc, worthy candidates.
You're right that Maxwell is up there with Newton but I suspect the choice will not be based simply on scientific merit.
Too many things based on celebrity rather than merit nowadays - discuss.
To digress for a moment I worked in betting shops in the early 80s marking the board as a summer job. Betting shops were very different back then - no FOBTs, no screens, no view inside or outside and there was much less going on. Two horse race meetings and two dog meetings so there was time between events for customers to talk and often argue what they had heard.
I would never describe it as communal as a local pub but there were regulars and there was a sense of community (the shop in Berwick Street was used by the market traders so some colourful language on occasions).
The modern shops are very different - in many ways more welcoming and attractive. You can get tea, coffee or a soft drink, there are comfy chairs and plenty of screens and you can see in and out. They could be quite sociable and social venues and at a time when the number of pubs has fallen there's a potential role for them as a social hub.
Unfortunately, that doesn't make money for the bookmakers so we have FOBTs which discourages conversation and can often be intimidating with groups of men huddled round the machines for hours at a time. In addition, there's always something happening - if there's no real racing, they put on cartoon racing because the bookies believe a busy day means more bets and more profit which of course it doesn't. If I could, I would tell the ABB "less is more" - throw out the FOBTs and the cartoon racing, show other sport (cricket, football, tennis, rugby, whatever) to get people in.
Every shop on a High Street has a role to play in fostering and developing a community spirit.
Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.
One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.
Just as well the chances aren't against him then. Boris /thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
You are at it again. Conhome is noas leader
You may not accept at
You do have a knack of talking utte You would have the party led by a group that would destroy it
well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
Remember winning election is about getting people to vote FOR you. Not chasing them away in the pursuit of purity
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
Many conservatives voted for Blair in those years. Sometimes a government is exhausted and in those circumstances blind loyalty leads into a cul de sac
I have a great deal of respect for the way you express your views - even when we disagree. I am a little intrigued by your suggestion that 'Many Conservatives voted for Blair' statement. Undoubtedly that was true of many former Tory voters , but that surely has to be distinguished from how Tory party members behaved? To my mind such a person who openly declared support for another party would be immediately vulnerable to expulsion! I was a Labour party member from 1970 - end of 1996 when I ceased to renew my membership. I did not vote Labour at the General Elections of 1997 - 2010 inclusive , and during that period voted Socialist Labour - 1997 - LibDem 2001 & 2005 - Green 2010.. Had I remained a party member, I would have expected to be expelled. I recall the immediate aftermath of the Greenwich by election in February 1987. On a TV programme a TGWU official who was also a member of the Labour GMC in that constituency revealed that he had voted for Rosie Barnes - the SDP winner. I was outraged , and trust that he was forced to stand down from that position thereafter.
Presumably you have returned to Labour now under Corbyn?
"Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.
Met Police chief Cressida Dick told the BBC her officers were assessing online material because it appears "there may have been a crime committed"."
I can see the positive side. If they are guilty and charged Labour can kick them out, if they aren't people can't pin the blame for the verdict on Corbyn or argue it for political purposes.
If the verdict had been made on the evidence rather than noise in the papers and PR purposes anti racism campaigner Marc Wadsworth would have never been kicked out the party.
You do have a knack of talking utte You would have the party led by a group that would destroy it
well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
Remember winning election is about getting people to vote FOR you. Not chasing them away in the pursuit of purity
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
Many conservatives voted for Blair in those years. Sometimes a government is exhausted and in those circumstances blind loyalty leads into a cul de sac
I have a great deal of respect for the way you express your views - even when we disagree. I am a little intrigued by your suggestion that 'Many Conservatives voted for Blair' statement. Undoubtedly that was true of many former Tory voters , but that surely has to be distinguished from how Tory party members behaved? To my mind such a person who openly declared support for another party would be immediately vulnerable to expulsion! I was a Labour party member from 1970 - end of 1996 when I ceased to renew my membership. I did not vote Labour at the General Elections of 1997 - 2010 inclusive , and during that period voted Socialist Labour - 1997 - LibDem 2001 & 2005 - Green 2010.. Had I remained a party member, I would have expected to be expelled. I recall the immediate aftermath of the Greenwich by election in February 1987. On a TV programme a TGWU official who was also a member of the Labour GMC in that constituency revealed that he had voted for Rosie Barnes - the SDP winner. I was outraged , and trust that he was forced to stand down from that position thereafter.
Presumably you have returned to Labour now under Corbyn?
I am not a Corbynite - though I voted Labour in 2015 & 2017. In the 2015 leadership election I paid £3 to register as a supporter and voted for Yvette Cooper. I have no intention of rejoining - and will be spoiling my Ballot Paper at the next election because I cannot support a gender vetted candidate.
You do have a knack of talking utte You would have the party led by a group that would destroy it
well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
Remember winning election is about getting people to vote FOR you. Not chasing them away in the pursuit of purity
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
Many conservatives voted for Blair in those years. Sometimes a government is exhausted and in those circumstances blind loyalty leads into a cul de sac
I have a great deal of respect for the way you express your views - even when we disagree. I am a little intrigued by your suggestion that 'Many Conservatives voted for Blair' statement. Undoubtedly that was true of many former Tory voters , but that surely has to be distinguished from how Tory party members behaved? To my mind such a person who openly declared support for another party would be immediately vulnerable to expulsion! I was a Labour party member from 1970 - end of 1996 when I ceased to renew my membership. I did not vote Labour at the General Elections of 1997 - 2010 inclusive , and during that period voted Socialist Labour - 1997 - LibDem 2001 & 2005 - Green 2010.. Had I remained a party member, I would have expected to be expelled. I recall the immediate aftermath of the Greenwich by election in February 1987. On a TV programme a TGWU official who was also a member of the Labour GMC in that constituency revealed that he had voted for Rosie Barnes - the SDP winner. I was outraged , and trust that he was forced to stand down from that position thereafter.
Presumably you have returned to Labour now under Corbyn?
I am not a Corbynite - though I voted Labour in 2015 & 2017. In the 2015 leadership election I paid £3 to register as a supporter and voted for Yvette Cooper. I have no intention of rejoining - and will be spoiling my Ballot Paper at the next election because I cannot support a gender vetted candidate.
"Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.
Met Police chief Cressida Dick told the BBC her officers were assessing online material because it appears "there may have been a crime committed"."
I can see the positive side. If they are guilty and charged Labour can kick them out, if they aren't people can't pin the blame for the verdict on Corbyn or argue it for political purposes.
If the verdict had been made on the evidence rather than noise in the papers and PR purposes anti racism campaigner Marc Wadsworth would have never been kicked out the party.
The hurdle for a criminal conviction is likely to be higher than the internal Labour party rules.
well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
Remember winning election is about getting people to vote FOR you. Not chasing them away in the pursuit of purity
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
Many conservatives voted for Blair in those years. Sometimes a government is exhausted and in those circumstances blind loyalty leads into a cul de sac
I have a great deal of respect for the way you express your views - even when we disagree. I am a little intrigued by your suggestion that 'Many Conservatives voted for Blair' statement. Undoubtedly that was true of many former Tory voters , but that surely has to be distinguished from how Tory party members behaved? To my mind such a person who openly declared support for another party would be immediately vulnerable to expulsion! I was a Labour party member from 1970 - end of 1996 when I ceased to renew my membership. I did not vote Labour at the General Elections of 1997 - 2010 inclusive , and during that period voted Socialist Labour - 1997 - LibDem 2001 & 2005 - Green 2010.. Had I remained a party member, I would have expected to be expelled. I recall the immediate aftermath of the Greenwich by election in February 1987. On a TV programme a TGWU official who was also a member of the Labour GMC in that constituency revealed that he had voted for Rosie Barnes - the SDP winner. I was outraged , and trust that he was forced to stand down from that position thereafter.
Presumably you have returned to Labour now under Corbyn?
I am not a Corbynite - though I voted Labour in 2015 & 2017. In the 2015 leadership election I paid £3 to register as a supporter and voted for Yvette Cooper. I have no intention of rejoining - and will be spoiling my Ballot Paper at the next election because I cannot support a gender vetted candidate.
What is a 'gender vetted candidate' ?
A candidate selected from an All Woman - or All Man - shortlist!
"Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.
Met Police chief Cressida Dick told the BBC her officers were assessing online material because it appears "there may have been a crime committed"."
I can see the positive side. If they are guilty and charged Labour can kick them out, if they aren't people can't pin the blame for the verdict on Corbyn or argue it for political purposes.
If the verdict had been made on the evidence rather than noise in the papers and PR purposes anti racism campaigner Marc Wadsworth would have never been kicked out the party.
The hurdle for a criminal conviction is likely to be higher than the internal Labour party rules.
That is a potential downside in terms of whether they should be in the party or not, although I've read stuff which says they aren't confirmed as Labour party members anyway.
In terms of perception though there are some that would probably insist that the police are more likely to find fault than Labour so either piece of mind for them or a potential piece of propaganda denied to them, either way a good result.
Comments
How about Dorothy Hodgkin? Nobel Prize-winning chemist; lefty peacenik on the one hand; supervisor of Margaret Thatcher on the other.
Problematic alcoholics are more typically downing cheap drinks including whole bottles of spirits from an off-licence not drinking single-serve drinks poured by a bartender.
Dorothy Hodgkin 3/1
Ada Lovelace 4/1
Alan Turing 4/1
Stephen Hawking 5/1
Rosalind Franklin 6/1
James Clerk Maxwell 16/1
Kathleen Lonsdale 16/1
Ernest Rutherford 25/1
Frank Whittle 25/1
The confounding factor in any such study is that non-drinkers are often recovering alcoholics or have other problematic lifestyle factors (including poverty).
Booze isn't good for you, even if you like it, and how ever much you want to distinguish good drinkers like yourself from bad drinkers who guzzle the horrid cheap stuff.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1058309338312380416
You may be an ideologue who wants to condemn others but that doesn't make you right.
There is a world of difference between someone going to their 'local' for a pint or two, a glass of wine, or 25 or 50ml of spirits and mixer and a chat with their friends and local community . . . or an alcoholic sat at home by himself downing a litre bottle of spirits, multiple whole bottles of wine, or a couple of litres of big bottles of white cider.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that the scientists who've looked into this and found the evidence are wrong. That's why the Royal Society for Public Health is saying what they're saying, its evidence-based research. Try it sometime.
It’s treated as choosing a box of Smarties. Oh, look! Lots of different colours! How lovely! (aka “diverse”). When in fact they’re all the bloody same. Sickly sweet and en masse bad for you.
Anyway, stuff to do. Enjoy the day.
No offence intended, BigG.
Douglas-Home was also an MP when he served in both posts and didn’t flounce resign when he lost to Wilson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smarties_(tablet_candy)#Flavors
I've got the Royal Socty for Public Health and Oxford University on my side. You've got your own suppositions, try looking into some science.
The best gig that I have been to recently was Nick Masons Saucerful of Secrets, playing pre Darkside Floyd. Absolutely brilliant and a great vibe. They also have put on some new dates in the spring.
Combining data from three separate studies - a questionnaire-based study of pub clientele, observing conversational behaviour in pubs, and a national survey by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) – the researchers looked at whether the frequency of alcohol consumption or the type of venue affected peoples’ social experiences and wellbeing.
Hurrah for science!
If that's the best that google can do for you, perhaps this digression has run its course.
Maxwell should be a good shout along with the names already mentioned.
You could almost believe that the Conservative party was a sensible, serious party which held the interests of the country as a whole at it's heart.
Then you see something like the kicking of the FOBT cap down the road and you realise it's still driven by greed and self-interest. Sadly.
Alcohol is so ingrained in our society that we almost try to pretend it is less unhealthy than it is.
200ml = 1 glass.
Given Theresa May's conference announcements of an end to austerity and permitting councils to borrow to build houses, Corbyn managed to move the centre ground and lose. Impressive, in a way.
I’ve not heard of them. Could you educate me further.
Two people have been injured at the Sony HQ in west London and armed police are at the scene
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2018/10/political-rhetoric-budget-masks-challenging-spending-review?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
Clearly whatever Hammond has said, there are going to be any number of Councils going for above-inflation Council Tax increases along with service cuts and some of the latter may be quite drastic in terms of closing facilities such as Children's Centres and Libraries. Those who use such services might consider the claims that austerity is over to be a tad hollow.
It's also worth remembering the Conservatives are due to defend in excess of 5,000 seats at next year's Council elections (subject to Councils merging and boundaries being redrawn).
* The other PB
Reasoning is thus: the Renault engine appears, certainly Red Bull thinks, some way off the top two but also half as far behind the Honda.
Correcting for reliability failures (assuming one DNF per driver rather than the higher real numbers) gives the following points tallies:
238 Ricciardo
259 Verstappen
[Real points below]
358 Hamilton
294 Vettel
236 Raikkonen
227 Bottas
But those extra points (a total of 10 additional points finishes) wouldn't come in a vacuum. They'd come at the expense of Hamilton and Vettel (and their team mates even more so). Certainly, Red Bull's drivers would be top 4. And they may well have pushed Vettel below Ricciardo.
Two big things may change next year. If the Honda really is halfway between the Renault and Mercedes/Ferrari, then that's a huge pace increase. The Red Bull will be competitive where this season it was in No Man's Land, and at circuits like Monaco and Mexico it'll be damned hard to beat. Reliability is crucial, though. If that remains as bad as this year, the pace advantage could be undone. If it improves to Ferrari or Mercedes levels, Red Bull perhaps should be favourite.
I was a Labour party member from 1970 - end of 1996 when I ceased to renew my membership. I did not vote Labour at the General Elections of 1997 - 2010 inclusive , and during that period voted Socialist Labour - 1997 - LibDem 2001 & 2005 - Green 2010.. Had I remained a party member, I would have expected to be expelled.
I recall the immediate aftermath of the Greenwich by election in February 1987. On a TV programme a TGWU official who was also a member of the Labour GMC in that constituency revealed that he had voted for Rosie Barnes - the SDP winner. I was outraged , and trust that he was forced to stand down from that position thereafter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070229
"Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.
Met Police chief Cressida Dick told the BBC her officers were assessing online material because it appears "there may have been a crime committed"."
I would never describe it as communal as a local pub but there were regulars and there was a sense of community (the shop in Berwick Street was used by the market traders so some colourful language on occasions).
The modern shops are very different - in many ways more welcoming and attractive. You can get tea, coffee or a soft drink, there are comfy chairs and plenty of screens and you can see in and out. They could be quite sociable and social venues and at a time when the number of pubs has fallen there's a potential role for them as a social hub.
Unfortunately, that doesn't make money for the bookmakers so we have FOBTs which discourages conversation and can often be intimidating with groups of men huddled round the machines for hours at a time. In addition, there's always something happening - if there's no real racing, they put on cartoon racing because the bookies believe a busy day means more bets and more profit which of course it doesn't. If I could, I would tell the ABB "less is more" - throw out the FOBTs and the cartoon racing, show other sport (cricket, football, tennis, rugby, whatever) to get people in.
Every shop on a High Street has a role to play in fostering and developing a community spirit.
Presumably you have returned to Labour now under Corbyn?
http://happyfeet.wikia.com/wiki/Lovelace
So I expect it will be her.
If the verdict had been made on the evidence rather than noise in the papers and PR purposes anti racism campaigner Marc Wadsworth would have never been kicked out the party.
NEW THREAD
What is a 'gender vetted candidate' ?
In terms of perception though there are some that would probably insist that the police are more likely to find fault than Labour so either piece of mind for them or a potential piece of propaganda denied to them, either way a good result.