politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Welcome to another Thursday night PB Nighthawks after another evening of clapping on the streets
Being stuck in our homes for most of the day the Thursday evening clapping in the streets for the NHS comes as something of a relief. It is just nice to get out of the house and also to exchange a few words with neighbours.
Judging by the replies, there are a lot of middle aged men on the twitter machine who appear to have spilled their coffee when this popped up on their timeline...
Judging by the replies, there are a lot of middle aged men on the twitter machine who appear to have spilled their coffee when this popped up on their timeline...
Judging by the replies, there are a lot of middle aged men on the twitter machine who appear to have spilled their coffee when this popped up on their timeline...
It’s odd. Every Thursday I hear about this on here, on WhatsApp, on Facebook.
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
I don't think that's right - my son lives in a street of "Coronation st" type older houses and they loudly clap - He lives with 2 nurses and they do appreciate it
Judging by the replies, there are a lot of middle aged men on the twitter machine who appear to have spilled their coffee when this popped up on their timeline...
It’s odd. Every Thursday I hear about this on here, on WhatsApp, on Facebook.
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
I don't think that's right - my son lives in a street of "Coronation st" type older houses and they loudly clap - He lives with 2 nurses and they do appreciate it
It’s odd. Every Thursday I hear about this on here, on WhatsApp, on Facebook.
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
I don't think that's right - my son lives in a street of "Coronation st" type older houses and they loudly clap - He lives with 2 nurses and they do appreciate it
Your son lives with 2 nurses? No wonder he claps
I think the unwoke assumptions in that cancel out to zero.
It’s odd. Every Thursday I hear about this on here, on WhatsApp, on Facebook.
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
I don't think that's right - my son lives in a street of "Coronation st" type older houses and they loudly clap - He lives with 2 nurses and they do appreciate it
Maybe it’s just the people of Chadsmoor are not interested in the world outside?
Judging by the replies, there are a lot of middle aged men on the twitter machine who appear to have spilled their coffee when this popped up on their timeline...
It’s odd. Every Thursday I hear about this on here, on WhatsApp, on Facebook.
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
I don't think that's right - my son lives in a street of "Coronation st" type older houses and they loudly clap - He lives with 2 nurses and they do appreciate it
Your son lives with 2 nurses? No wonder he claps
I think the unwoke assumptions in that cancel out to zero.
It’s odd. Every Thursday I hear about this on here, on WhatsApp, on Facebook.
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
I don't think that's right - my son lives in a street of "Coronation st" type older houses and they loudly clap - He lives with 2 nurses and they do appreciate it
I see this Thursday thing go off big time in some proper high unemployment housing estates in Belfast: fireworks, car horns, chiming bells blasting out on speakers I even heard once. All sorts. Dont think its a class conscious activity, at least in this town.
It seems to me that this document misses the point completely, in failing to understand the reasons for the “lockdown”. Which, put simply, are to maximise social distancing, backed by the law where necessary.
Anyone who practices social distancing whilst not within the confines of their house, should not be falling foul of the law simply by some largely arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes a “reasonable” excuse for being outside.
Fundamentally, IMO, the question of “reasonableness” should only become an issue where breaches of social distancing are being observed. There is no sensible reason, to take the example quoted, for buying paint and brushes to be a breach of the law, but buying materials to fix a fence should not. There should be no issue with sitting on a park bench, should doing so result in no social distancing breach. We are not required by the law to be prisoners in our homes. We are required to take sensible precautions when leaving them. That is not the situation suggested by the police “guidance” which seems to focus on Govt wording, rather than Govt purpose/intent.
It’s odd. Every Thursday I hear about this on here, on WhatsApp, on Facebook.
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
I don't think that's right - my son lives in a street of "Coronation st" type older houses and they loudly clap - He lives with 2 nurses and they do appreciate it
Your son lives with 2 nurses? No wonder he claps
I think the unwoke assumptions in that cancel out to zero.
hehe well I have never claimed to be woke
Every house out tonight in my middle england street. Mainly clapping but I did my bit on the old pans.
Lots of chat (at a distance) about another three weeks. I detect an acceptance of that, but suspect pushing it beyond into another month will be challenging.
It’s odd. Every Thursday I hear about this on here, on WhatsApp, on Facebook.
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
I don't think that's right - my son lives in a street of "Coronation st" type older houses and they loudly clap - He lives with 2 nurses and they do appreciate it
Your son lives with 2 nurses? No wonder he claps
I think the unwoke assumptions in that cancel out to zero.
hehe well I have never claimed to be woke
Every house out tonight in my middle england street. Mainly clapping but I did my bit on the old pans.
Lots of chat (at a distance) about another three weeks. I detect an acceptance of that, but suspect pushing it beyond into another month will be challenging.
Did you tell them that more than likely all social norms will still be banned for the next 6 months? If Germany arent opening the restaurants and bars for the next 5 months, no chance we will be down the boozer before that (unless we really want that 2nd wave before the winter).
Trump is taking a hell of an obvious gamble pushing the US toward reopening on 1 May
He would be, if he was in charge of a centralised country like the UK. But he isn't. The majority of Governors will not go along with it and so there won't be the negative consequence of a rapid resurgence in deaths. And Trump is then able to blame the Governors for the economic damage - he wanted to open the economy, not his fault.
We wait to see whether enough voters will buy that crap, but I can't rule it out.
Trump is taking a hell of an obvious gamble pushing the US toward reopening on 1 May
Trump needs the economy to recover by November.
If it’s the virus that recovers first, he is done.
Does he not end up with best of both worlds? Governors and mayors will keep the lockdown, but he gets to say every night that effectively, in the main, the lockdown is over.
I wonder at what point the Guardian will think her tin foil hattery has gone too far and damaging their brand?
Carole seems to be comparing with the White House, where the press core are in their seats.
It may have escaped her notice that Trump is POTUS and basically doesn't believe the plague should effect any aspect of life.
Doesn't everyone who gets in the room have to live in isolation and get transported to and from the hige house every day? I thought those were the terms of coming into close contact with Trump.
Trump is taking a hell of an obvious gamble pushing the US toward reopening on 1 May
He would be, if he was in charge of a centralised country like the UK. But he isn't. The majority of Governors will not go along with it and so there won't be the negative consequence of a rapid resurgence in deaths. And Trump is then able to blame the Governors for the economic damage - he wanted to open the economy, not his fault.
We wait to see whether enough voters will buy that crap, but I can't rule it out.
This.
Afraid I am of the view that the voters will buy the crap at least in the swing states.
Seeing pictures of the clap for carers, its a lovely thing, but is it just me but there seems to be a lot of people often standing very close to one another.
... One PPE vendor that we know did $80M in revenue last year, and currently has $2B or more worth of demand for his products. They would need a 50% down payment to lock in this capacity. Even in normally functioning credit markets, this would probably be unrealistic for a business of their scale to secure. There is a lot of risk in the production process when scaling manufacturing capacity 20x. And banks have difficulty quantifying this risk, since they are not manufacturing or quality control experts. In the midst of a pandemic that has spooked lenders, getting this degree of financing is likely impossible without some form of government guarantee....
Seeing pictures of the clap for carers, its a lovely thing, but is it just me but there seems to be a lot of people often standing very close to one another.
Seeing pictures of the clap for carers, its a lovely thing, but is it just me but there seems to be a lot of people often standing very close to one another.
... One PPE vendor that we know did $80M in revenue last year, and currently has $2B or more worth of demand for his products. They would need a 50% down payment to lock in this capacity. Even in normally functioning credit markets, this would probably be unrealistic for a business of their scale to secure. There is a lot of risk in the production process when scaling manufacturing capacity 20x. And banks have difficulty quantifying this risk, since they are not manufacturing or quality control experts. In the midst of a pandemic that has spooked lenders, getting this degree of financing is likely impossible without some form of government guarantee....
"China is the only place in the world that can scale manufacturing as fast as we need right now. Our sources estimate the production capacity of Chinese PPE at 160M units per day. Of that, we believe 80M is consumed domestically and some is reserved for the Chinese national stockpile.
The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that, throughout the pandemic, the country’s healthcare system will require 3.5 billion units of PPE."
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
If you have kids and want their maths to improve. This guy is giving free lectures on high school maths. He more advanced stuff is very good, so i imagine it will be worthwhile.
Seeing pictures of the clap for carers, its a lovely thing, but is it just me but there seems to be a lot of people often standing very close to one another.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Reminds me of when Jason Donovan sued someone in the 1990s who'd accused him of being gay.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
I see McDonnell is causing trouble. We shouldn't talk about anything but coronavirus, but i am now going to talk for 15 mins on betrayal from within the Labour Party and how we were right, we won the argument etc etc etc.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
I see McDonnell is causing trouble. We shouldn't talk about anything but coronavirus, but i am now going to talk for 15 mins on betrayal from within the Labour Party and how we were right, we won the argument etc etc etc.
Stop giving the Corbynites oxygen Francis! They are water under the bridge. Dirty water, yes, but under the bridge.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
"U.K. Paid $20 Million for New Coronavirus Tests. They Didn’t Work. Facing a global scramble for materials, British officials bought millions of unproven kits from China in a gamble that became an embarrassment."
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
My son is starting work at the Nightingale Hospital tomorrow. Not in a medical capacity but as clerical support staff. Still, doing his bit. Proud of him - and, I confess, a little bit anxious.
... One PPE vendor that we know did $80M in revenue last year, and currently has $2B or more worth of demand for his products. They would need a 50% down payment to lock in this capacity. Even in normally functioning credit markets, this would probably be unrealistic for a business of their scale to secure. There is a lot of risk in the production process when scaling manufacturing capacity 20x. And banks have difficulty quantifying this risk, since they are not manufacturing or quality control experts. In the midst of a pandemic that has spooked lenders, getting this degree of financing is likely impossible without some form of government guarantee....
The CEO of a German ventilator manufacturer that also makes PPE was saying the problem with ramping up PPE production is that it can only realistically be made with full automation. Once you run the machines 24 hours a day you have no other way of increasing production. Ventilators, which are relatively labour intensive to produce, are more amenable to surge production.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
... One PPE vendor that we know did $80M in revenue last year, and currently has $2B or more worth of demand for his products. They would need a 50% down payment to lock in this capacity. Even in normally functioning credit markets, this would probably be unrealistic for a business of their scale to secure. There is a lot of risk in the production process when scaling manufacturing capacity 20x. And banks have difficulty quantifying this risk, since they are not manufacturing or quality control experts. In the midst of a pandemic that has spooked lenders, getting this degree of financing is likely impossible without some form of government guarantee....
The CEO of a German ventilator manufacturer that also makes PPE was saying the problem with ramping up PPE production is that it can only realistically be made with full automation. Once you run the machines 24 hours a day you have no other way of increasing production. Ventilators, which are relatively labour intensive to produce, are more amenable to surge production.
You build a new line. Or ten. Which is where “there is a lot of risk in scaling” comes in.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
You are failing to understand my point....most normal people don't work like that they call it as they see it. you drink a bottle of spirits a night we will call you an alcoholic the fact its not accurate as we can't prove it is neither here nor there. For most of us we don't really know what we can get in trouble saying because we don't worry about it as this law really doesn't apply to us as we aren't like to get sued as there is no point.
You cannot give me even now a defining line between x is an alcoholic being fair use and x is an alcoholic being libellious. Go on tell me where I can say a and where I can get sued
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
Well it's quite simple. Most of us have been drunk. I have on occasion wondered how I got home. I have certainly stumbled around. I'm not an alcoholic though. being an alcoholic is completely different to liking a drink and sometimes doing it to excess.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
You are failing to understand my point....most normal people don't work like that they call it as they see it. you drink a bottle of spirits a night we will call you an alcoholic the fact its not accurate as we can't prove it is neither here nor there. For most of us we don't really know what we can get in trouble saying because we don't worry about it as this law really doesn't apply to us as we aren't like to get sued as there is no point.
You cannot give me even now a defining line between x is an alcoholic being fair use and x is an alcoholic being libellious. Go on tell me where I can say a and where I can get sued
When in other words can I say x is an alcoholic and be fair use when can I say x is an alcoholic and get sued draw that line for me with this specific example
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
Try to treat other people as you yourself might wish to be treated.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
Truth is no particular defence! You would need to be able to prove it in court. Hence why most sensible editors remove any such accusation.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
Well it's quite simple. Most of us have been drunk. I have on occasion wondered how I got home. I have certainly stumbled around. I'm not an alcoholic though. being an alcoholic is completely different to liking a drink and sometimes doing it to excess.
We all have I suspect. What I am getting that is there seems to be some line drawn where you can say
x is an alcoholic and be fair use x is an alcoholic and be sued
I am asking where the line is as a lay person because damned if I can work it out and I suspect what it amounts to is black at one end, white at the other and a huge grey area in the middle. The grey area is the problem because without legal training you really have no idea if you are veering into the grey
Comments
Every Thursday my street is as quiet as the cemetery next to it.
I do live on a council estate. I don’t know whether that has any bearing on it. Maybe it’s a very middle-class thing?
https://twitter.com/Nigella_Lawson/status/1250857872948420610?s=19
https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/status/1250595619397386245?s=09
Or perhaps they haven’t heard about it?
https://youtu.be/JrARKkMzBX8
https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tomswalkforthenhs
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1250891449685639168?s=20
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1250891725398315008?s=20
It seems to me that this document misses the point completely, in failing to understand the reasons for the “lockdown”. Which, put simply, are to maximise social distancing, backed by the law where necessary.
Anyone who practices social distancing whilst not within the confines of their house, should not be falling foul of the law simply by some largely arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes a “reasonable” excuse for being outside.
Fundamentally, IMO, the question of “reasonableness” should only become an issue where breaches of social distancing are being observed. There is no sensible reason, to take the example quoted, for buying paint and brushes to be a breach of the law, but buying materials to fix a fence should not. There should be no issue with sitting on a park bench, should doing so result in no social distancing breach. We are not required by the law to be prisoners in our homes. We are required to take sensible precautions when leaving them. That is not the situation suggested by the police “guidance” which seems to focus on Govt wording, rather than Govt purpose/intent.
But this has been discussed before....
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1250809334289833986?s=19
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1250822193509994497?s=20
Lots of chat (at a distance) about another three weeks. I detect an acceptance of that, but suspect pushing it beyond into another month will be challenging.
We wait to see whether enough voters will buy that crap, but I can't rule it out.
The House of Commons Commission said ministers will be quizzed via Zoom for the first time in the House's 700-year history.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52299514
It may have escaped her notice that Trump is POTUS and basically doesn't believe the plague should effect any aspect of life.
Afraid I am of the view that the voters will buy the crap at least in the swing states.
This could not have happened ten or maybe fifteen years ago.
Why There Aren't Enough Masks, and How to Get More
https://www.flexport.com/blog/why-there-arent-enough-masks-and-how-to-get-more/
... One PPE vendor that we know did $80M in revenue last year, and currently has $2B or more worth of demand for his products. They would need a 50% down payment to lock in this capacity. Even in normally functioning credit markets, this would probably be unrealistic for a business of their scale to secure. There is a lot of risk in the production process when scaling manufacturing capacity 20x. And banks have difficulty quantifying this risk, since they are not manufacturing or quality control experts. In the midst of a pandemic that has spooked lenders, getting this degree of financing is likely impossible without some form of government guarantee....
The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that, throughout the pandemic, the country’s healthcare system will require 3.5 billion units of PPE."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(county)
https://youtu.be/ppWPuXsnf1Q
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Minneapolis-St Paul
San Francisco-Oakland
?
"U.K. Paid $20 Million for New Coronavirus Tests. They Didn’t Work.
Facing a global scramble for materials, British officials bought millions of unproven kits from China in a gamble that became an embarrassment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/middleeast/coronavirus-antibody-test-uk.html
Other son is also applying.
All the rest are Slough.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
Which is where “there is a lot of risk in scaling” comes in.
You cannot give me even now a defining line between x is an alcoholic being fair use and x is an alcoholic being libellious. Go on tell me where I can say a and where I can get sued
https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wh
when can I say x is an alcoholic and get sued
draw that line for me with this specific example
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
x is an alcoholic and be fair use
x is an alcoholic and be sued
I am asking where the line is as a lay person because damned if I can work it out and I suspect what it amounts to is black at one end, white at the other and a huge grey area in the middle. The grey area is the problem because without legal training you really have no idea if you are veering into the grey