It's remarkable how little awareness there is of how many people died in terrorist attacks across Europe in the 1970s. If you go back further in time, you find terrorism has been with us a hundred years or so.
In other words, there's no greater risk in dying in a terrorist incident now than in 2000 or 2005, and a lot less than in 1975. Yet the Internet has allowed us all to convince ourselves we're facing some unprecedented threat.
Once again, the point is being missed.
I'm not comparing terrorism to flying which has also become much safer since the 1970s because of technological improvements.
Nor do I wish to exaggerate the sense of "threat" - I'll leave others to that. I don't feel any more or less "scared" than I ever have (apart from the days after 7/7).
The point remains all we are doing, to use a medical analogy, is treating the symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying causes.
I think Governments (not just ours) should be more about the latter which would alleviate the former and allow resources to be diverted to other areas.
Regrettably too many see this as "too difficult" and cower behind their walls, cameras and sentences rather than seeking to engage with the causes.
I presume the Tory majority price is being anchored by BMG.
They have the lower bound on the Tory lead. If BMG are right we are in hung parliament territory.
Alternatively, Opinium have got it right and there's going to be a landslide. Or nobody's got it right and Labour are going to win a majority.
Nobody knows for sure, but the range of information available points to a moderate Conservative majority as the most likely outcome. And I remain to be convinced that the Neil faux outrage episode will make the blindest bit of difference.
Exactly, the question I'm trying to answer is why is Tory Maj a generous 1.4?
I can only assume it isn't lower because the polling range still holds out the possibility of a hung parliament. If BMG's next poll has the lead up, say, 2 points in would expect the price to steam in to 1.2 or lower.
I don't support the Labour party and wouldn't vote for them, but there is one policy which they may be correct on, their suggestion that public schools should be abolished. When you reflect on the fact that after six years at Eton, Boris cannot coherently string a sentence together, and can't speak for more than 10 seconds without telling a fib, you do wonder what damage that sort of school is doing to kids. After an expensive education the poor chap is virtually unemployable, except as a politician, where lies and deceit are regarded as virtues.
I think this anti-public school argument is nonsense.
Johnson's not at all unemployable: he'd have kept his jobs in journalism if his spectacularly dysfunctional father hadn't deprived him of any kind of moral compass. He'd have made an adequate estate agent or (in his day) client service person in advertising, the City or accountancy if he hadn't picked up (again presumably from his father, since lots of Balliol and Eton alumni do these jobs) the delusion he was above that kind of thing.
It's not public schools (or Oxford) that have made him a monster. His sense of entitlement (and the reality of his mediocrity) are things he shares with his siblings Rebecca and Jo - so, again, are largely down to his father.
There's only so much parental damage Eton can heal - which is why so many of its alumni are such stellar shits. As a rule, Eton's speciality is taking high quality DNA, badly undermined by inadequate but rich parents, and house training it.
It's remarkable how little awareness there is of how many people died in terrorist attacks across Europe in the 1970s. If you go back further in time, you find terrorism has been with us a hundred years or so.
In other words, there's no greater risk in dying in a terrorist incident now than in 2000 or 2005, and a lot less than in 1975. Yet the Internet has allowed us all to convince ourselves we're facing some unprecedented threat.
Once again, the point is being missed.
I'm not comparing terrorism to flying which has also become much safer since the 1970s because of technological improvements.
Nor do I wish to exaggerate the sense of "threat" - I'll leave others to that. I don't feel any more or less "scared" than I ever have (apart from the days after 7/7).
The point remains all we are doing, to use a medical analogy, is treating the symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying causes.
I think Governments (not just ours) should be more about the latter which would alleviate the former and allow resources to be diverted to other areas.
Regrettably too many see this as "too difficult" and cower behind their walls, cameras and sentences rather than seeking to engage with the causes.
How do you propose dealing with the causes? What even are the causes? Is there a country out there doing a better job of dealing with the causes?
I don't support the Labour party and wouldn't vote for them, but there is one policy which they may be correct on, their suggestion that public schools should be abolished. When you reflect on the fact that after six years at Eton, Boris cannot coherently string a sentence together, and can't speak for more than 10 seconds without telling a fib, you do wonder what damage that sort of school is doing to kids. After an expensive education the poor chap is virtually unemployable, except as a politician, where lies and deceit are regarded as virtues.
I think this anti-public school argument is nonsense.
Johnson's not at all unemployable: he'd have kept his jobs in journalism if his spectacularly dysfunctional father hadn't deprived him of any kind of moral compass. He'd have made an adequate estate agent or (in his day) client service person in advertising, the City or accountancy if he hadn't picked up (again presumably from his father, since lots of Balliol and Eton alumni do these jobs) the delusion he was above that kind of thing.
It's not public schools (or Oxford) that have made him a monster. His sense of entitlement (and the reality of his mediocrity) are things he shares with his siblings Rebecca and Jo - so, again, are largely down to his father.
There's only so much parental damage Eton can heal - which is why so many of its alumni are such stellar shits. As a rule, Eton's speciality is taking high quality DNA, badly undermined by inadequate but rich parents, and house training it.
Some are beyond redemption.
This is largely nonsense. Boris is an extremely able journalist, as a writer AND editor. He took the Spectator to historic new heights. Newspapers do not pay big wages to journalists for fun: they are ruthlessly capitalist.
Boris made huge money at the Telegraph because he was good and brought loyal readers on board.
I was joking before, but Corbyn really IS terrible. He looks sad, tired and defeated. And old.
And this time next week he is likely to have resigned as Labour leader after a Tory majority and he knows it, he needed a barnstorming performance tonight to change things and so far it does not look to be going that way
Last time the polls were this stable during a campaign was 2010, and they got it pretty much spot on (result +7.2%, average of final polls 6.9)
Difference between then and now is that the Lib Dem seat count has broadly switched to the SNP count which makes it harder for Labour but easier for the Tories to get a majority
Probably more for 2024 than now, but it does look quite challenging for Labour to get an overall majority of one without a big Scottish recovery. One for Friday morning if we’re not all surprised by a hung Parliament I guess.
Except they may be forced to work out how to win in England again. IMHO Brexit makes Scottish secession more likely.
Fair point. My instinct is we’ll get an orderly Brexit and it won’t come to that, but it might. And if does, then that has to be a very scary prospect for Labour.
Even scarier for the rest of us. Do you think that perpetual Tory rule is a good thing?
As long as Labour is this far left, abso-friggin-lutely!
Indeed so! The only way Labour win an election is by getting natural conservatives to vote for them - as Tony Blair did in ‘97.
Not natural conservatives as much as centrists, Blair got those, even Wilson got those, Corbyn is not on the whole
I don't support the Labour party and wouldn't vote for them, but there is one policy which they may be correct on, their suggestion that public schools should be abolished. When you reflect on the fact that after six years at Eton, Boris cannot coherently string a sentence together, and can't speak for more than 10 seconds without telling a fib, you do wonder what damage that sort of school is doing to kids. After an expensive education the poor chap is virtually unemployable, except as a politician, where lies and deceit are regarded as virtues.
I think this anti-public school argument is nonsense.
Johnson's not at all unemployable: he'd have kept his jobs in journalism if his spectacularly dysfunctional father hadn't deprived him of any kind of moral compass. He'd have made an adequate estate agent or (in his day) client service person in advertising, the City or accountancy if he hadn't picked up (again presumably from his father, since lots of Balliol and Eton alumni do these jobs) the delusion he was above that kind of thing.
It's not public schools (or Oxford) that have made him a monster. His sense of entitlement (and the reality of his mediocrity) are things he shares with his siblings Rebecca and Jo - so, again, are largely down to his father.
There's only so much parental damage Eton can heal - which is why so many of its alumni are such stellar shits. As a rule, Eton's speciality is taking high quality DNA, badly undermined by inadequate but rich parents, and house training it.
Some are beyond redemption.
This is largely nonsense. Boris is an extremely able journalist, as a writer AND editor. He took the Spectator to historic new heights. Newspapers do not pay big wages to journalists for fun: they are ruthlessly capitalist.
Boris made huge money at the Telegraph because he was good and brought loyal readers on board.
Boris was sacked twice for lying:
In 1988 he was sacked from The Times over making up quotes by the historian Colin Lucas (his own Godfather).
In 2004 he was sacked from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over lying about the Petronella Wyatt affair.
It's remarkable how little awareness there is of how many people died in terrorist attacks across Europe in the 1970s. If you go back further in time, you find terrorism has been with us a hundred years or so.
In other words, there's no greater risk in dying in a terrorist incident now than in 2000 or 2005, and a lot less than in 1975. Yet the Internet has allowed us all to convince ourselves we're facing some unprecedented threat.
Once again, the point is being missed.
I'm not comparing terrorism to flying which has also become much safer since the 1970s because of technological improvements.
Nor do I wish to exaggerate the sense of "threat" - I'll leave others to that. I don't feel any more or less "scared" than I ever have (apart from the days after 7/7).
The point remains all we are doing, to use a medical analogy, is treating the symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying causes.
I think Governments (not just ours) should be more about the latter which would alleviate the former and allow resources to be diverted to other areas.
Regrettably too many see this as "too difficult" and cower behind their walls, cameras and sentences rather than seeking to engage with the causes.
My view, and this is an unpopular one, is that there is no threat.
Or rather, the threat is as it's always been. There will always be nutters who want to kill others on behalf of their ideology - whether Communism, Fascism, Islamism, national liberation, and perhaps ecological motives in the future. If you deal with Islamic terrorism, I suspect all you really do is move the nutters to the next cause.
Fortunately, the number of people who want to die in a terrorist attack is incredibly small. (If it wasn't, there'd be more than about one attack a year.)
In the US, there is an airline that performs no security checks. You just walk onto the plane. It's bliss. And there is - to all intents and purposes - no risk. I love it.
I was joking before, but Corbyn really IS terrible. He looks sad, tired and defeated. And old.
And this time next week he is likely to have resigned as Labour leader after a Tory majority and he knows it, he needed a barnstorming performance tonight to change things and so far it does not look to be going that way
Agree with this. All about the future of the Labour Party now. Can we get rid of the hard left?
But while it undoubtedly helps, it doesn't solve the issue that the UK's population pyramid is biggest at the 50-54 point. That group is a third larger than the 15-19 age group.
I agree. There will need to be a lot more creative thinking and a lot more acceptance that working life will be longer for our children than it was for our parents. I am already resigned to working well past legal retirement age but am fortunate in the fact that the work I do requires more mind and less body.
While that helps I see my Dad, who was an actuary, and he's only 73 but his short term memory is deteriorating and he's said he doesn't have the mental agility he used to.
How am I going to work to 75 if I can't do anything too physical and I can't do complicated coding either?
Plus life expectancy is not rising much any more either
I was joking before, but Corbyn really IS terrible. He looks sad, tired and defeated. And old.
And this time next week he is likely to have resigned as Labour leader after a Tory majority and he knows it, he needed a barnstorming performance tonight to change things and so far it does not look to be going that way
Agree with this. All about the future of the Labour Party now. Can we get rid of the hard left?
I was joking before, but Corbyn really IS terrible. He looks sad, tired and defeated. And old.
And this time next week he is likely to have resigned as Labour leader after a Tory majority and he knows it, he needed a barnstorming performance tonight to change things and so far it does not look to be going that way
Agree with this. All about the future of the Labour Party now. Can we get rid of the hard left?
I was joking before, but Corbyn really IS terrible. He looks sad, tired and defeated. And old.
And this time next week he is likely to have resigned as Labour leader after a Tory majority and he knows it, he needed a barnstorming performance tonight to change things and so far it does not look to be going that way
Agree with this. All about the future of the Labour Party now. Can we get rid of the hard left?
So much better a format with decent to and fro, sensibly moderated. And no stupid audience applause.
Oh OK. I'm not watching, but have they actually binned the audience so Johnson and Corbyn can be heard above the cacophony of crap from the bussed-in party cheerleaders? A considerable improvement if true.
I don't support the Labour party and wouldn't vote for them, but there is one policy which they may be correct on, their suggestion that public schools should be abolished. When you reflect on the fact that after six years at Eton, Boris cannot coherently string a sentence together, and can't speak for more than 10 seconds without telling a fib, you do wonder what damage that sort of school is doing to kids. After an expensive education the poor chap is virtually unemployable, except as a politician, where lies and deceit are regarded as virtues.
I think this anti-public school argument is nonsense.
Johnson's not at all unemployable: he'd have kept his jobs in journalism if his spectacularly dysfunctional father hadn't deprived him of any kind of moral compass. He'd have made an adequate estate agent or (in his day) client service person in advertising, the City or accountancy if he hadn't picked up (again presumably from his father, since lots of Balliol and Eton alumni do these jobs) the delusion he was above that kind of thing.
It's not public schools (or Oxford) that have made him a monster. His sense of entitlement (and the reality of his mediocrity) are things he shares with his siblings Rebecca and Jo - so, again, are largely down to his father.
There's only so much parental damage Eton can heal - which is why so many of its alumni are such stellar shits. As a rule, Eton's speciality is taking high quality DNA, badly undermined by inadequate but rich parents, and house training it.
Some are beyond redemption.
This is largely nonsense. Boris is an extremely able journalist, as a writer AND editor. He took the Spectator to historic new heights. Newspapers do not pay big wages to journalists for fun: they are ruthlessly capitalist.
Boris made huge money at the Telegraph because he was good and brought loyal readers on board.
Boris was sacked twice for lying:
In 1988 he was sacked from The Times over making up quotes by the historian Colin Lucas (his own Godfather).
In 2004 he was sacked from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over lying about the Petronella Wyatt affair.
Don't get me wrong. Boris is a liar, and a serial womanizer. and an unexpectedly bad public speaker, amongst other bad things.
But to say he is talentless, or a crap journalist, is bollocks.
Boris goes for the jugular, says he does not take kindly to being accused of risking the Union by a man who has opposed the Union his whole life and supported the IRA
How do you propose dealing with the causes? What even are the causes? Is there a country out there doing a better job of dealing with the causes?
I don't see why it should be up to me in isolation. This is, as I said earlier, a multi-layered multi-faceted problem involving and requires regional and indeed global co-operation.
The radicalisation of some within the Islamic faith is perhaps the root cause - I don't know all the hows and whys but I think it starts with a change in tone within that faith to a more open-minded and less confrontational outlook.
Progress and evolution can challenge some tenets of faith - not the moral ones but the more cultural and behavioural and what might once have been acceptable is so no longer. Perhaps it is that confusion of progress which has allowed some to find refuge in a traditional interpretation of belief.
I was joking before, but Corbyn really IS terrible. He looks sad, tired and defeated. And old.
And this time next week he is likely to have resigned as Labour leader after a Tory majority and he knows it, he needed a barnstorming performance tonight to change things and so far it does not look to be going that way
Agree with this. All about the future of the Labour Party now. Can we get rid of the hard left?
The future of Labour may depend on it, if Pidcock or Long-Bailey beat Starmer or Thornberry to replace Corbyn the LDs could fill the gap in opposition to the Boris Government, especially if Chuka wins Cities of London and Westminster and succeeds Swinson as leader
It's remarkable how little awareness there is of how many people died in terrorist attacks across Europe in the 1970s. If you go back further in time, you find terrorism has been with us a hundred years or so.
In other words, there's no greater risk in dying in a terrorist incident now than in 2000 or 2005, and a lot less than in 1975. Yet the Internet has allowed us all to convince ourselves we're facing some unprecedented threat.
Once again, the point is being missed.
I'm not comparing terrorism to flying which has also become much safer since the 1970s because of technological improvements.
Nor do I wish to exaggerate the sense of "threat" - I'll leave others to that. I don't feel any more or less "scared" than I ever have (apart from the days after 7/7).
The point remains all we are doing, to use a medical analogy, is treating the symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying causes.
I think Governments (not just ours) should be more about the latter which would alleviate the former and allow resources to be diverted to other areas.
Regrettably too many see this as "too difficult" and cower behind their walls, cameras and sentences rather than seeking to engage with the causes.
My view, and this is an unpopular one, is that there is no threat.
Or rather, the threat is as it's always been. There will always be nutters who want to kill others on behalf of their ideology - whether Communism, Fascism, Islamism, national liberation, and perhaps ecological motives in the future. If you deal with Islamic terrorism, I suspect all you really do is move the nutters to the next cause.
Fortunately, the number of people who want to die in a terrorist attack is incredibly small. (If it wasn't, there'd be more than about one attack a year.)
In the US, there is an airline that performs no security checks. You just walk onto the plane. It's bliss. And there is - to all intents and purposes - no risk. I love it.
Hang on, they say on the website that they have "non-invasive hi-tech security".
I have to say Corbyn looks defeated and unless something happens this looks like a win for Boris
You would say that though wouldn’t you?
Don't you
Of course not. Corbyn is detestable but Boris is just a liar. He’s misleading the country and you are cheering him on.
It’s a disgrace really.
We're not cheering him on, we're cheering on the only sane option when the alternative is a Jew-hating, terrorist-hugging Marxist old git who would bankrupt the country.
I do share some of your pain. Imagine what a Labour politician like young Blair or Ed Balls would do to Boris, if we had a time machine and they were given the chance. They'd rip him apart.
Can this vacuous poshboy really be about to win a general election? Smazing.
There's nothing amazing about it, the reasons he might (and probably will) are easy enough to understand. It's easy to understand Corbyn's appeal to millions too. Neither of those things speaks well of where the country is, at least in my opinion, but I'm always wary of being seemingly stunned by either of those bozos winning.
I don't support the Labour party and wouldn't vote for them, but there is one policy which they may be correct on, their suggestion that public schools should be abolished. When you reflect on the fact that after six years at Eton, Boris cannot coherently string a sentence together, and can't speak for more than 10 seconds without telling a fib, you do wonder what damage that sort of school is doing to kids. After an expensive education the poor chap is virtually unemployable, except as a politician, where lies and deceit are regarded as virtues.
There is no such policy in the Labour Manifesto. They ran away from the commitment - sensible decision.
Such a decision would cost multiple billions net per year, and would remove much diversity from the education system - one of my own nieces had to be moved to an independent school as the state system could not prevent bullying or supply necessary support.
That's leaving aside the approx billion a year spent on bursaries etc.
They know that a more diverse system is better - much of Corbyn's circle sent their children there.
Boris has brought his A game tonight, on top form on the Nurses.
I misread that and thought you said "on top *of* the nurses". I would have switched the telly on except for 1) I can't remember how to switch it on and 2) I am on a train and my telly is nearly one hundred miles away.
I don't support the Labour party and wouldn't vote for them, but there is one policy which they may be correct on, their suggestion that public schools should be abolished. When you reflect on the fact that after six years at Eton, Boris cannot coherently string a sentence together, and can't speak for more than 10 seconds without telling a fib, you do wonder what damage that sort of school is doing to kids. After an expensive education the poor chap is virtually unemployable, except as a politician, where lies and deceit are regarded as virtues.
There is no such policy in the Labour Manifesto. They ran away from the commitment - sensible decision.
Such a decision would cost multiple billions net per year, and would remove much diversity from the education system - one of my own nieces had to be moved to an independent school as the state system could not prevent bullying or supply necessary support.
That's leaving aside the approx billion a year spent on bursaries etc.
They know that a more diverse system is better - much of Corbyn's circle sent their children there.
Exactly and it would close some of the best schools in the world just as we are rising up the education rankings
Corbyn has a strange speaking tic of taking a breath before concluding a sentence. I've become more and more aware of it to the detriment of understanding the point he's trying to make.
It's remarkable how little awareness there is of how many people died in terrorist attacks across Europe in the 1970s. If you go back further in time, you find terrorism has been with us a hundred years or so.
In other words, there's no greater risk in dying in a terrorist incident now than in 2000 or 2005, and a lot less than in 1975. Yet the Internet has allowed us all to convince ourselves we're facing some unprecedented threat.
Once again, the point is being missed.
I'm not comparing terrorism to flying which has also become much safer since the 1970s because of technological improvements.
Nor do I wish to exaggerate the sense of "threat" - I'll leave others to that. I don't feel any more or less "scared" than I ever have (apart from the days after 7/7).
The point remains all we are doing, to use a medical analogy, is treating the symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying causes.
I think Governments (not just ours) should be more about the latter which would alleviate the former and allow resources to be diverted to other areas.
Regrettably too many see this as "too difficult" and cower behind their walls, cameras and sentences rather than seeking to engage with the causes.
My view, and this is an unpopular one, is that there is no threat.
Or rather, the threat is as it's always been. There will always be nutters who want to kill others on behalf of their ideology - whether Communism, Fascism, Islamism, national liberation, and perhaps ecological motives in the future. If you deal with Islamic terrorism, I suspect all you really do is move the nutters to the next cause.
Fortunately, the number of people who want to die in a terrorist attack is incredibly small. (If it wasn't, there'd be more than about one attack a year.)
In the US, there is an airline that performs no security checks. You just walk onto the plane. It's bliss. And there is - to all intents and purposes - no risk. I love it.
Hang on, they say on the website that they have "non-invasive hi-tech security".
Non-invasive, non-visible, non-existant high-tech security, to be precise.
Comments
I'm not comparing terrorism to flying which has also become much safer since the 1970s because of technological improvements.
Nor do I wish to exaggerate the sense of "threat" - I'll leave others to that. I don't feel any more or less "scared" than I ever have (apart from the days after 7/7).
The point remains all we are doing, to use a medical analogy, is treating the symptoms rather than dealing with the underlying causes.
I think Governments (not just ours) should be more about the latter which would alleviate the former and allow resources to be diverted to other areas.
Regrettably too many see this as "too difficult" and cower behind their walls, cameras and sentences rather than seeking to engage with the causes.
Johnson's not at all unemployable: he'd have kept his jobs in journalism if his spectacularly dysfunctional father hadn't deprived him of any kind of moral compass. He'd have made an adequate estate agent or (in his day) client service person in advertising, the City or accountancy if he hadn't picked up (again presumably from his father, since lots of Balliol and Eton alumni do these jobs) the delusion he was above that kind of thing.
It's not public schools (or Oxford) that have made him a monster. His sense of entitlement (and the reality of his mediocrity) are things he shares with his siblings Rebecca and Jo - so, again, are largely down to his father.
There's only so much parental damage Eton can heal - which is why so many of its alumni are such stellar shits. As a rule, Eton's speciality is taking high quality DNA, badly undermined by inadequate but rich parents, and house training it.
Some are beyond redemption.
Boris made huge money at the Telegraph because he was good and brought loyal readers on board.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/06/corbyn-still-plays-the-crowds-but-spirit-of-2017-remains-elusive
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/06/labour-divided-family-together-brexitland-remainia
I expect Owen Jones will be along in a minute to shout at everyone about how well it is all going.
There are two seriously pessimistic articles on the Guardian website right now, from Corbyn cheerleaders who normally big him up
In 1988 he was sacked from The Times over making up quotes by the historian Colin Lucas (his own Godfather).
In 2004 he was sacked from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over lying about the Petronella Wyatt affair.
Or rather, the threat is as it's always been. There will always be nutters who want to kill others on behalf of their ideology - whether Communism, Fascism, Islamism, national liberation, and perhaps ecological motives in the future. If you deal with Islamic terrorism, I suspect all you really do is move the nutters to the next cause.
Fortunately, the number of people who want to die in a terrorist attack is incredibly small. (If it wasn't, there'd be more than about one attack a year.)
In the US, there is an airline that performs no security checks. You just walk onto the plane. It's bliss. And there is - to all intents and purposes - no risk. I love it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/election-2019-50683887
But to say he is talentless, or a crap journalist, is bollocks.
PEOPLE OF TALENT hahahaha
The radicalisation of some within the Islamic faith is perhaps the root cause - I don't know all the hows and whys but I think it starts with a change in tone within that faith to a more open-minded and less confrontational outlook.
Progress and evolution can challenge some tenets of faith - not the moral ones but the more cultural and behavioural and what might once have been acceptable is so no longer. Perhaps it is that confusion of progress which has allowed some to find refuge in a traditional interpretation of belief.
It’s a disgrace really.
It’s a disgrace either way.
I do share some of your pain. Imagine what a Labour politician like young Blair or Ed Balls would do to Boris, if we had a time machine and they were given the chance. They'd rip him apart.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones to concentrate on.
Should I bother?
Such a decision would cost multiple billions net per year, and would remove much diversity from the education system - one of my own nieces had to be moved to an independent school as the state system could not prevent bullying or supply necessary support.
That's leaving aside the approx billion a year spent on bursaries etc.
They know that a more diverse system is better - much of Corbyn's circle sent their children there.
Is this new?
https://twitter.com/bbceducation/status/1201773474894745600?s=20