Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
A majority support fining or jailing those who break lockdown, fining or jailing those who refuse to wear an app post lockdown and who develop symptoms is little different
You get worse by the minute and frankly are becoming an embarrassment to our party
There was a time when folk thought BJ was an embarrassment to the party. They may even have said as much on here.
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
And then discovering Mike is off so the work is being done by an apprentice who has been there 6 weeks and can just about follow the manual.
I suspect there are going to be a fair few gotchas in the NHS solution that will reduce it's usefulness.
Well the biggest red flag is they had to get GCHQ to "find" a loophole to force IoS to do something that is supposedly not possible (cough cough, digs out an exploit they already use as part of their spying toolbox). It is in regards to control the bluetooth polling, so that it doesn't eat all your battery up.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
Was Hyufd not a tory councillor at one point. Would be easy enough to work out his real identity if they wanted
Wow, "a former Councillor has said [insert his bollocks here]". That's a potential gamechanger (!)
In relation to Conor Burns, do we know if this is subject to a Police investigation?
A seven day Parliamentary suspension doesn't put his seat in danger, but this does appear at least to raise a question of blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.
It may have been looked at and determined he's okay - blackmail is fairly tricky as you have to show the defendant didn't believe the means used were a proper means of reinforcing the demand (it clearly wasn't a proper means, but it isn't a "reasonable person" test - the question is whether Burns knew it was improper). But, if it hasn't been investigated this could have a way to run.
Astonishingly Burns threatened the Commissioner for parliamentary standards that the disputed allegations would enter the public domain if she continued her investigation. She doesn't seem impressed.
Funnily enough, that possibly makes him less likely to be guilty of blackmail under the Theft Act. An oddity of the law on blackmail is that it's based on the genuine belief of the "blackmailer" as to the propriety of the action, not the reasonable belief of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.
If Conor Burns is the sort of sh1t who genuinely thinks it's absolutely fine to make these sort of threats (and the fact he threatened the Commissioner suggests he is) he's actually less likely to be guilty of an offence.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
Was Hyufd not a tory councillor at one point. Would be easy enough to work out his real identity if they wanted
As I understand it he is chairman of his local constituency but in fairness I am not naming the constituency
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
Was Hyufd not a tory councillor at one point. Would be easy enough to work out his real identity if they wanted
Wow, "a former Councillor has said [insert his bollocks here]". That's a potential gamechanger (!)
Shrugs councillor says x on twitter seems to be used all the time by all sides already
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
Was Hyufd not a tory councillor at one point. Would be easy enough to work out his real identity if they wanted
Wow, "a former Councillor has said [insert his bollocks here]". That's a potential gamechanger (!)
Shrugs councillor says x on twitter seems to be used all the time by all sides already
Yes and its meaningless garbage like Twitter is in general.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
Was Hyufd not a tory councillor at one point. Would be easy enough to work out his real identity if they wanted
As I understand it he is chairman of his local constituency but in fairness I am not naming the constituency
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
Was Hyufd not a tory councillor at one point. Would be easy enough to work out his real identity if they wanted
Wow, "a former Councillor has said [insert his bollocks here]". That's a potential gamechanger (!)
Shrugs councillor says x on twitter seems to be used all the time by all sides already
Yes and its meaningless garbage like Twitter is in general.
Well yes it is to me and you. I assume the parties thinks it sways votes however else they wouldn't do it
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't close that exploit, as an app should only be able to make requests for background activity not force it by using an exploit. As soon as the NHS release the app that exploit will be in the wild, and Apple won't want others using it.
If the Apple version works as has been suggested, by using an exploit in IOS, it's not going to even make it as far as the App Store.
The Android version will have different problems, due to the huge number of device types and software versions out there there will be millions of phones on which it doesn't work correctly, if it works at all.
Not to mention the huge privacy implications, especially anything involving compulsion by government or effective compulsion by private organisations.
It will work on Android phones running Android 5.0 and above, which is about 95% of phones currently using the Google Play Store, and you need BLE support which I would expect to be almost as widely supported as it predates Android 5.0.
What makes you think it will work on 5.0, apparently the app the americans have only works on 6.0 onwards
Tories just cannot help being nasty........................
ONE OF Boris Johnson's closest allies has resigned from the government after he was found guilty of trying to use parliamentary privilege to “intimidate a member of the public” in a row over debt. Conor Burns, Minister of State for International Trade, faces a seven day ban from the Commons following his intervention in a dispute over a loan reypayment beteween with a company and his father.
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
And then discovering Mike is off so the work is being done by an apprentice who has been there 6 weeks and can just about follow the manual.
I suspect there are going to be a fair few gotchas in the NHS solution that will reduce it's usefulness.
Well the biggest red flag is they had to get GCHQ to "find" a loophole to force IoS to do something that is supposedly not possible (cough cough, digs out an exploit they already use as part of their spying toolbox). It is in regards to control the bluetooth polling, so that it doesn't eat all your battery up.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
“Apple disables U.K. Coronavirus app.“
How do you spin that headline?
More like UK Coronavirus app never arrives in Apple's Appstore.
In relation to Conor Burns, do we know if this is subject to a Police investigation?
A seven day Parliamentary suspension doesn't put his seat in danger, but this does appear at least to raise a question of blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.
It may have been looked at and determined he's okay - blackmail is fairly tricky as you have to show the defendant didn't believe the means used were a proper means of reinforcing the demand (it clearly wasn't a proper means, but it isn't a "reasonable person" test - the question is whether Burns knew it was improper). But, if it hasn't been investigated this could have a way to run.
Astonishingly Burns threatened the Commissioner for parliamentary standards that the disputed allegations would enter the public domain if she continued her investigation. She doesn't seem impressed.
Conor Burns is an arrogant prat. He stood as parliamentary candidate for Eaatleigh twice and got stuffed both times. As soon as he was replaced the tories won the seat.
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
Your argument amounts to "You shouldn't read it yourself - just rely on others to do it for you". Which I do not accept.
Going up the chain of sources to understand how an argument is constructed is part of critical thinking.
So if I came at you with some creationist arguments right now, would you go look them up on, say, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , spend a little time cross-referencing on google to check there's some degree of consensus, then respond? Or would you be completely paralyzed because the relevant papers- and the papers they cite, and the ones they cite, and so on- are likely to be paywalled?
Um. Neither?
You seem to have missed a critical point here. What if one of the Goves are in the mystical category of "people who read these books so the rest of us don't have to"?
Tories just cannot help being nasty........................
ONE OF Boris Johnson's closest allies has resigned from the government after he was found guilty of trying to use parliamentary privilege to “intimidate a member of the public” in a row over debt. Conor Burns, Minister of State for International Trade, faces a seven day ban from the Commons following his intervention in a dispute over a loan reypayment beteween with a company and his father.
Because no one in any other party has ever done anything like that eh Malc?]
Tories just cannot help being nasty........................
ONE OF Boris Johnson's closest allies has resigned from the government after he was found guilty of trying to use parliamentary privilege to “intimidate a member of the public” in a row over debt. Conor Burns, Minister of State for International Trade, faces a seven day ban from the Commons following his intervention in a dispute over a loan reypayment beteween with a company and his father.
@eek I believe GCHQ have “donated” an iOS Bluetooth vulnerability that allows an app to run in the background? Could be wrong, but that’s my understanding.
You can be sure the Tories monkeys will be spying on you, Fatso and his creeps can get stuffed.
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
And then discovering Mike is off so the work is being done by an apprentice who has been there 6 weeks and can just about follow the manual.
I suspect there are going to be a fair few gotchas in the NHS solution that will reduce it's usefulness.
Well the biggest red flag is they had to get GCHQ to "find" a loophole to force IoS to do something that is supposedly not possible (cough cough, digs out an exploit they already use as part of their spying toolbox). It is in regards to control the bluetooth polling, so that it doesn't eat all your battery up.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
“Apple disables U.K. Coronavirus app.“
How do you spin that headline?
"Apple bravely stands up to evil Tory Government using the virus as an excuse to spy on its citizens for nefarious purposes".
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
Yes - my biggest reservation is that the thing won't work very well for its intended purpose.
In which case it probably shouldn't be rolled out. Like Gove said - no app is better than a bad app.
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
Preventing somebody from saying something is censorship. Judging them for saying it is not censorship. Preventing somebody from reading a book is censorship. Judging them for reading it is not censorship.
It's incredible that the people claiming to be on the side of openness are simultaneously thought-policing by saying I'm not allowed to form a judgement of somebody based on their behaviour.
Publicly judging someone can be an attempt to create social censorship
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
A poll taken at the beginning of lockdown 5 weeks ago. I doubt you would get those results now judging by the fact that more and more people are ignoring the rules. Try again with a poll from a week ago
On Brexit, I see Govey saying "I'll recruit pen pushers to tie business up in knots of red tape" and see self-styled true conservatives like HYUFD insisting thats a Good Thing. Business is not going to allow any such thing to happen, even the Tories won't be able to withstand Tesco and Jaguar saying "thats us fucked then" as the economy judders along in the midst of the worst recession we have seen in decades.
People voted for Brexit, they didn't vote for the consequences of Brexit. They haven't a clue how the economy works, how trade works, how manufacturing works, how the supply chain works. They are clueless - they just think that The Man has screwed them too many times and they want to Take Back Control for a change.
Local Brexiteers up here want an end to being told what to do by the EU. They don't want to see an end to local shops and for Tesco shelves to be half empty which is exactly what will happen if we leave with No Deal as anyone who knows anything about how it works (not HYUFD then) will tell you with precise detail. So its an empty threat. "But you voted for this" is what Goebbels said in the penultimate scene in Downfall before he shot himself...
Its a fudge. The "surrender" referred to earlier was that the UK surrendered its sovereignty over NI and agreed to place an intra-British border down the Irish Sea. Thats not a win for anyone including the EU so of course noone is celebrating it. That the government say "oh no we haven't" when presented with the treaty which says "oh yes you have" next to Shagger's signature tells you all you need to know.
They know the voters haven't a clue. They know the voters don't care about the details of what Brexit is. So exactly as they did having thrown NI under the buss they will simply declare victory and everyone will Move On. We won't have Free Movement as neither will a post-viral EU. We will have additional checks as they will also have between France and Germany and that sour-faced Patel troll will say its a triumph of Her Policy.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't close that exploit, as an app should only be able to make requests for background activity not force it by using an exploit. As soon as the NHS release the app that exploit will be in the wild, and Apple won't want others using it.
If the Apple version works as has been suggested, by using an exploit in IOS, it's not going to even make it as far as the App Store.
The Android version will have different problems, due to the huge number of device types and software versions out there there will be millions of phones on which it doesn't work correctly, if it works at all.
Not to mention the huge privacy implications, especially anything involving compulsion by government or effective compulsion by private organisations.
It will work on Android phones running Android 5.0 and above, which is about 95% of phones currently using the Google Play Store, and you need BLE support which I would expect to be almost as widely supported as it predates Android 5.0. This applies to the Google/Apple API, I assume that the NHS app would have similar requirements.
How's about the Windows phones, Blackberries, Huaweis, Nokias, all those people who have a dumb phone, or no mobile phone at all? These groups are disproportionally likely to be young, old and poorer than the general population.
Warms my heart to see the left, whose last PM wanted everyone to have mandatory ID cards and a massive associated state database, suddenly discover the virtues of personal freedom and the evils of state surveillance.
If an app is off the table, how else would tracking and tracing work?
Tbh, if we can use these, and the field hospitals, to increase isolation then we should do so.
One thing happening much faster in the UK than it did in Italy is hospitalisations going down. I don't necessarily see that as a positive if we're still not getting people into hospital soon enough or discharging them too early. It is a measure/target that could drive perverse incentives.
Regarding the book row, I am uncomfortable with the idea that if you have a book on a bookshelf it means you must endorse the contents. Some people no doubt have carefully curated bookshelves but for other people they just use their bookshelves as a dumping ground and never throw anything out.
Do we even know Gove even read the book? Could easily be an unwanted birthday or Christmas present. Could belong to someone else in the family.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't close that exploit, as an app should only be able to make requests for background activity not force it by using an exploit. As soon as the NHS release the app that exploit will be in the wild, and Apple won't want others using it.
If the Apple version works as has been suggested, by using an exploit in IOS, it's not going to even make it as far as the App Store.
The Android version will have different problems, due to the huge number of device types and software versions out there there will be millions of phones on which it doesn't work correctly, if it works at all.
Not to mention the huge privacy implications, especially anything involving compulsion by government or effective compulsion by private organisations.
It will work on Android phones running Android 5.0 and above, which is about 95% of phones currently using the Google Play Store, and you need BLE support which I would expect to be almost as widely supported as it predates Android 5.0.
What makes you think it will work on 5.0, apparently the app the americans have only works on 6.0 onwards
That's what it said in the API documents.
No idea what the american app is using, but we do know that the uk one isn't going to use the api
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
And then discovering Mike is off so the work is being done by an apprentice who has been there 6 weeks and can just about follow the manual.
I suspect there are going to be a fair few gotchas in the NHS solution that will reduce it's usefulness.
Well the biggest red flag is they had to get GCHQ to "find" a loophole to force IoS to do something that is supposedly not possible (cough cough, digs out an exploit they already use as part of their spying toolbox). It is in regards to control the bluetooth polling, so that it doesn't eat all your battery up.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
“Apple disables U.K. Coronavirus app.“
How do you spin that headline?
More like UK Coronavirus app never arrives in Apple's Appstore.
Given iPhone has around 40-50% of the UK market, the app not being on Apple's store would effectively kill the project. You can't really do it at all if it's not available on half of all smartphones, given the nature of the product.
Anyway, if there's any attempt at compulsion in tracking my movements via my mobile phone, I'll simply leave it at home.
In which case it is possible the government could require the police to conduct stop and search with arrest for those not carrying the mobile phone with tracing app
Having wet dreams again? If they put in such a law it would be be subject to mass disobedience. You cannot lock people up for not possessing a piece of consumer electronics. Only 55% of over 55's have a smart phone only 18% of over 65's
If it is the best way to reduce the spread of Covid you can, enforced by the police.
Over 65s can stay in if they refuse to have one or only go out with permits
Yeah like you will lock up 45% of over 55's who will be off out as soon as lockdown lifts. You want to ensure there is never another tory government and foster a complete disrespect of the police then by all means try it
As the polling shows more people are concerned about the death rate rising again post lockdown than pursuing extreme libertarianism
It is not extreme libertarianism not to have total government surviellance apparatus put in place it is sensible. Or maybe you think mr Meeks and Cyclefree are both libertarians too
They are both social democrat liberals not conservatives.
At the end of the day for a tracing app to be effective most people have to wear it, if they do not we cannot end enforced quarantine with all the economic damage resulting.
If too few people wear the app some element of enforcement is therefore inevitable if the lockdown is to be lifted
I really don't care what the logic is. It is not enforceable as a law
Anything is enforceable as the law if the police enforce it and a majority support it.
The majority would accept the use of apps to end lockdown and ensure those with symptoms and who they have been in contact with can be traced and forced to isolate whatever a libertarian minority might think
Doesnt matter if the majority support it, merely takes enough to ignore it and plenty will. Never pass a law you can't enforce.
If the majority support it the minority who refuse to comply can be arrested by the police and fined or jailed without difficulty
Total drivel supporting the app is not the same as agreeing those that dont should be jailed or fined
a large percentage support the license fee for example a large percentage of those dont think people should be fined or jailed for non payment.
Plus this minority you cite isnt going to be the odd 1 or 2 but about 20% of the population..... there are minorities and there are minorities
A majority support fining or jailing those who break lockdown, fining or jailing those who refuse to wear an app post lockdown and who develop symptoms is little different
You get worse by the minute and frankly are becoming an embarrassment to our party
There was a time when folk thought BJ was an embarrassment to the party. They may even have said as much on here.
Our local County Lines delivery boys seem to have a phone in every pocket. Presumably some sort of derogation can be arranged so they only have to run the app on one of them?
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
Your argument amounts to "You shouldn't read it yourself - just rely on others to do it for you". Which I do not accept.
Going up the chain of sources to understand how an argument is constructed is part of critical thinking.
So if I came at you with some creationist arguments right now, would you go look them up on, say, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , spend a little time cross-referencing on google to check there's some degree of consensus, then respond? Or would you be completely paralyzed because the relevant papers- and the papers they cite, and the ones they cite, and so on- are likely to be paywalled?
The talk origins posts are only able to be there because people have put time and effort into doing them - same as the papers they cite etc - I think you will find those who have done that have been willing and able to read the creationist nonsense in order to rebut it.
I certainly wouldn't take the position that because it is a bit difficult to follow the chain of sources, I shouldn't read the work in question and try to look at the sources.
Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
I doubt it, I think a marketing campaign saying to download this to keep you safe and "protect the NHS" along with co-operation from social media etc would surely be sufficient to get that percentage take up.
Advertise it across Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, Instagram etc and on TV etc and quite quickly the takeup will be up there.
1) No where in the bbc article does it mention 80%
No, there was another article which you were too lazy to look for yourself. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896 As someone so disturbed by the whole idea, I'd have though you might want to know what you're opposing...
Well as you cited an article and said 80% it was natural to assume it came from the cited article
"On 20 March, Singapore became one of the first countries to deploy a voluntary contact-tracing app, TraceTogether.
But only about 12% of the population installed it"
good luck with your 80%
We wont get 80% but 3m signed up for the ZOE covid 19 tracker which has had little publicity and no govt call to action, so we will get much higher than 12%.
A good guess the % market for the betting firms perhaps!
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
Those questions are about physical restrictions on movement, not about apps.
I don't see any polling yet on whether your parent's or child's phone having a dead battery should be able to lead to their arrest and imprisonment, or denial of entry to a pharmacy or grocery store.
For all those horrified about giving up your information to the Gov't, @HYUFD approach is favoured overwhemingly in the polling.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
There needs to be a high degree of consent for this programme to work. So you also make the effort to get people on board. There probably also needs to be a degree of compulsion to get the coverage. What form that compulsion takes has to be worked out, but the basic deal is that the system enables you conveniently to do activities that are prevented by lockdown.
For all those horrified about giving up your information to the Gov't, @HYUFD approach is favoured overwhemingly in the polling.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
As i already pointed out that poll was taken at the start of lockdown. For evidence that things have likely changed walk down your high st. I know mine is almost back to normal people wise. I think attitudes to lockdown has changed a lot as people have experienced it
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
Those questions are about physical restrictions on movement, not about apps.
I don't see any polling yet on whether your parent's or child's phone having a dead battery should be able to lead to their arrest and imprisonment, or denial of entry to a pharmacy or grocery store.
Why is polling so important? People give emotional answers to questions they have barely thought about, let alone the unintended consequences of such laws on our legal systems capacity.
The government is elected to govern and do whats right not blindly follow opinion polling.
For all those horrified about giving up your information to the Gov't, @HYUFD approach is favoured overwhemingly in the polling.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
There needs to be a high degree of consent for this programme to work. So you also make the effort to get people on board. There probably also needs to be a degree of compulsion to get the coverage. What form that compulsion takes has to be worked out, but the basic deal is that the system enables you conveniently to do activities that are prevented by lockdown.
And those that refuse will also go out doing those activities
The biggest concern about this app is that the big brains at google and apple have implemented an API to generate the contacts, but the UK government aren't going to use it as they want a centralised system.
Its a bit like wanting to tune an F1 car and saying you aren't going to use Mclearn or Ferrari engineers, you are going to use Mike the mechanic from down the road.
And then discovering Mike is off so the work is being done by an apprentice who has been there 6 weeks and can just about follow the manual.
I suspect there are going to be a fair few gotchas in the NHS solution that will reduce it's usefulness.
Well the biggest red flag is they had to get GCHQ to "find" a loophole to force IoS to do something that is supposedly not possible (cough cough, digs out an exploit they already use as part of their spying toolbox). It is in regards to control the bluetooth polling, so that it doesn't eat all your battery up.
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
“Apple disables U.K. Coronavirus app.“
How do you spin that headline?
What do you think they'd do, make a special UK-only mode that leaves British phones to be exploited by all and sundry?
PS I'm not sure I believe this claim, the idea of relying on a 0day not being patched is too stupid.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
HYUFD is no more "a real conservative" than Chris Willamson is "real Labour".
I wasn't thinking he was, merely suggesting would make some good election posters for our comrades in red
'This is something someone you've never heard about online said' is hardly something to make a good election poster.
If ever the party leadership was as horrific as he is it certainly would and I would not be voting for the party.
Was Hyufd not a tory councillor at one point. Would be easy enough to work out his real identity if they wanted
Wow, "a former Councillor has said [insert his bollocks here]". That's a potential gamechanger (!)
Shrugs councillor says x on twitter seems to be used all the time by all sides already
Yes and its meaningless garbage like Twitter is in general.
Well yes it is to me and you. I assume the parties thinks it sways votes however else they wouldn't do it
No I assume it winds up the parties supporters and loons on Twitter which is why they get involved.
The parties actual adverts, PPBs etc steers clear of such trivial nonsense.
Warms my heart to see the left, whose last PM wanted everyone to have mandatory ID cards and a massive associated state database, suddenly discover the virtues of personal freedom and the evils of state surveillance.
If an app is off the table, how else would tracking and tracing work?
I don't have a problem with ID cards. I have a drivers license and a passport and other ID so whats the problem with pulling all of those into one as so many other countries do. A world of difference between an ID card with a chip (ooh scary) and an app that uploads your position every hour of the day so they can see who you've been meeting with.
You seem to have missed a critical point here. What if one of the Goves are in the mystical category of "people who read these books so the rest of us don't have to"?
Firstly they're poorly suited for that category because they have no relevant academic background.
But, moreso I don't believe they belong to that category because I was unable to find anything public written by either of them which debunks The Bell Curve (which, after all, is the definition of that category). Have I missed something by one of them?
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
A poll taken at the beginning of lockdown 5 weeks ago. I doubt you would get those results now judging by the fact that more and more people are ignoring the rules. Try again with a poll from a week ago
They all seem to have something in common, I just can't quite put my finger on what it is...be interesting to see if Starmer decides to use their criticisms of the government or not.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
A poll taken at the beginning of lockdown 5 weeks ago. I doubt you would get those results now judging by the fact that more and more people are ignoring the rules. Try again with a poll from a week ago
Most people are complying with the lockdown still
Not in my town they aren't. Maybe where you live but don't judge everywhere by that. Saturday the high st was full of people hanging around in groups chatting
Dan Hodges with the classic "pretend that judging somebody for something is the same as censoring it" trick. Getting a bit tired nowadays, but I guess some credulous people still fall for it.
It would be fair enough to judge Gove if he were a holocaust denier. But he is being judged for owning a book on it. That is surely censorship.
Preventing somebody from saying something is censorship. Judging them for saying it is not censorship. Preventing somebody from reading a book is censorship. Judging them for reading it is not censorship.
It's incredible that the people claiming to be on the side of openness are simultaneously thought-policing by saying I'm not allowed to form a judgement of somebody based on their behaviour.
Publicly judging someone can be an attempt to create social censorship
Ah okay, so Dan Hodges judging the people tweeting about the books may be an attempt to create social censorship? Better let him know!
Warms my heart to see the left, whose last PM wanted everyone to have mandatory ID cards and a massive associated state database, suddenly discover the virtues of personal freedom and the evils of state surveillance.
If an app is off the table, how else would tracking and tracing work?
I don't have a problem with ID cards. I have a drivers license and a passport and other ID so whats the problem with pulling all of those into one as so many other countries do. A world of difference between an ID card with a chip (ooh scary) and an app that uploads your position every hour of the day so they can see who you've been meeting with.
every hour? It's easier on a program level to do it in real time.
For all those horrified about giving up your information to the Gov't, @HYUFD approach is favoured overwhemingly in the polling.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
There needs to be a high degree of consent for this programme to work. So you also make the effort to get people on board. There probably also needs to be a degree of compulsion to get the coverage. What form that compulsion takes has to be worked out, but the basic deal is that the system enables you conveniently to do activities that are prevented by lockdown.
And those that refuse will also go out doing those activities
There are a few ifs in this. But if the bulk of people accept contact apps enable more and safer activity and if the government applies the rules in an intelligent way, I think that group of refuseniks would be quite small.
They all seem to have something in common, I just can't quite put my finger on what it is...be interesting to see if Starmer decides to use their criticisms of the government or not.
From the Telegraph live blog
"I think the main point I’m making is that an independent science advisory group really needs to be dominated by people whose income is not determined by the fact they are working for the Government."
I'd be surprised if the people on SAGE were salaried employees of the government. They seem to be under the impression SAGE are just a bunch of yes-men.
Just a nugget for you..Guardian story on Big Dom...No axes to grind here...
Several members on Sage, as well as scientists on its advisory subcommittees, are known to be frustrated at what they view as a culture of secrecy that risks straining public trust in the government’s response to Covid-19.
Susan Michie (Corbynista and now on the alternative SAGE for Corbynistas group) - was member of the UK Government’s Covid-19 Behavioural Science Advisory Group. Covid-19 Behavioural Science Advisory Group is tasked with presenting evidence to the Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies (SAGE)
For all those horrified about giving up your information to the Gov't, @HYUFD approach is favoured overwhemingly in the polling.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
There needs to be a high degree of consent for this programme to work. So you also make the effort to get people on board. There probably also needs to be a degree of compulsion to get the coverage. What form that compulsion takes has to be worked out, but the basic deal is that the system enables you conveniently to do activities that are prevented by lockdown.
And those that refuse will also go out doing those activities
There are a few ifs in this. But if the bulk of people accept contact apps enable more and safer activity and if the government applies the rules in an intelligent way, I think that group of refuseniks would be quite small.
And irrelevant to the success of the program if small enough.
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
Those questions are about physical restrictions on movement, not about apps.
I don't see any polling yet on whether your parent's or child's phone having a dead battery should be able to lead to their arrest and imprisonment, or denial of entry to a pharmacy or grocery store.
Denial of entry isn't a problem, it's private property after all. On more than one occasion I have got to the supermarket to find I haven't got my wallet, and had to go back to it. It's no different to that. Beiing in public per se shouldn't be a problem as long as you are continuing to observe social distancing measures.
Warms my heart to see the left, whose last PM wanted everyone to have mandatory ID cards and a massive associated state database, suddenly discover the virtues of personal freedom and the evils of state surveillance.
If an app is off the table, how else would tracking and tracing work?
I don't have a problem with ID cards. I have a drivers license and a passport and other ID so whats the problem with pulling all of those into one as so many other countries do. A world of difference between an ID card with a chip (ooh scary) and an app that uploads your position every hour of the day so they can see who you've been meeting with.
I was under the impression it only saves handshakes with other phones, it doesn't actively monitor your position.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
Those questions are about physical restrictions on movement, not about apps.
I don't see any polling yet on whether your parent's or child's phone having a dead battery should be able to lead to their arrest and imprisonment, or denial of entry to a pharmacy or grocery store.
Why is polling so important? People give emotional answers to questions they have barely thought about, let alone the unintended consequences of such laws on our legal systems capacity.
The government is elected to govern and do whats right not blindly follow opinion polling.
A good starting point for an intelligent journalist, might be to ask the government why they decided against the development of Google and Apple - instead choosing their own, centralised, solution?
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
A poll taken at the beginning of lockdown 5 weeks ago. I doubt you would get those results now judging by the fact that more and more people are ignoring the rules. Try again with a poll from a week ago
Most people are complying with the lockdown still
Not in my town they aren't. Maybe where you live but don't judge everywhere by that. Saturday the high st was full of people hanging around in groups chatting
Those militantly in favour of continuing the lockdown might have pause for thought if they were obliged to accommodate a family of urban evacuees in their spare bedroom. When we celebrate our WW2 heroes on Friday let's not forget the billeting officers. See Put Out More Flags for more information.
On Brexit, I see Govey saying "I'll recruit pen pushers to tie business up in knots of red tape" and see self-styled true conservatives like HYUFD insisting thats a Good Thing. Business is not going to allow any such thing to happen, even the Tories won't be able to withstand Tesco and Jaguar saying "thats us fucked then" as the economy judders along in the midst of the worst recession we have seen in decades.
People voted for Brexit, they didn't vote for the consequences of Brexit. They haven't a clue how the economy works, how trade works, how manufacturing works, how the supply chain works. They are clueless - they just think that The Man has screwed them too many times and they want to Take Back Control for a change.
Local Brexiteers up here want an end to being told what to do by the EU. They don't want to see an end to local shops and for Tesco shelves to be half empty which is exactly what will happen if we leave with No Deal as anyone who knows anything about how it works (not HYUFD then) will tell you with precise detail. So its an empty threat. "But you voted for this" is what Goebbels said in the penultimate scene in Downfall before he shot himself...
Its a fudge. The "surrender" referred to earlier was that the UK surrendered its sovereignty over NI and agreed to place an intra-British border down the Irish Sea. Thats not a win for anyone including the EU so of course noone is celebrating it. That the government say "oh no we haven't" when presented with the treaty which says "oh yes you have" next to Shagger's signature tells you all you need to know.
They know the voters haven't a clue. They know the voters don't care about the details of what Brexit is. So exactly as they did having thrown NI under the buss they will simply declare victory and everyone will Move On. We won't have Free Movement as neither will a post-viral EU. We will have additional checks as they will also have between France and Germany and that sour-faced Patel troll will say its a triumph of Her Policy.
Your post fails in its first paragraph. Tesco and Jaguar won't say "thats us fucked then" as they won't be fucked. In fact Tesco and Jaguar are more than capable of dealing with paperwork which they already deal with for non-EU trade. Its no big deal for them.
The third paragraph is equally absurd. The shelves won't be empty.
The fourth paragraph is nonsense too. NI wasn't surrendered, the protocol requires ongoing Stormont consent to stay in place. Devolution is well established in this nation now.
The second and fifth paragraphs are just ranting and insulting the intelligence of people, it has no actual point.
On SK I remember linking to their public websites in February showing the journeys and times each infected person had made so that people could heck if they had been exposed or not. Come May we have absolutely nothing like this. If we are going to make trace and isolate work we need it. That means accepting that your smartphone is used to track you and that information is put into the public domain, no doubt anonymised but probably identifiable to those who know you.
Are we ready for that? I am but I am not sure.
What has this government done to make its opponents trust it?
This would be a tough sell anyway and having a government led by figures who revel in playing fast and loose with data is only going to make it harder.
I think that Brits feel that way about every government. We have a healthy distrust of authority. Remember the arguments about ID cards under Blair? The question is whether enough people can be persuaded to take part. It has to be voluntary.
The issues with such an app are these:-
1. What is done with the information collected? 2. Who has access to it and what can they use it for? Not just information-sharing within the public sector but whether it is sold to private companies for private gain. 3. What are the controls on its use and how can we trust them? 4. How long is the information is held for and is it deleted once no longer needed? 5. The security of the app ie ensuring that it does not make hacking of other personal information / systems easier.
Similar issues arise with the Coronavirus Regulations - very oppressive legislation, passed in days. We need to keep a very close eye on them to make sure that they are repealed at the earliest possible time. Power grabs by authorities have a tendency to stay far beyond their sell by date, if we are not careful.
To rebut the nonsense in it when people try and cite it as scholarly work.
Honestly that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly it's easy to find information debunking the book online. It seems unlikely that you'd find anything in it yourself that's not already easily available out there. Plus unless you extensively bookmark it, it's going to be a lot easier to look up online than to try to go back to the book each time you want to rebut something. And secondly a lot of the problems with The Bell Curve are related to the papers it cites, so owning the book itself is relatively useless.
Your argument amounts to "You shouldn't read it yourself - just rely on others to do it for you". Which I do not accept.
Going up the chain of sources to understand how an argument is constructed is part of critical thinking.
So if I came at you with some creationist arguments right now, would you go look them up on, say, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , spend a little time cross-referencing on google to check there's some degree of consensus, then respond? Or would you be completely paralyzed because the relevant papers- and the papers they cite, and the ones they cite, and so on- are likely to be paywalled?
Um. Neither?
You seem to have missed a critical point here. What if one of the Goves are in the mystical category of "people who read these books so the rest of us don't have to"?
I can't think of anything that Sarah 'Throbbing' Vine should do to save the rest of us having to do it. Except..er..you know what with the Gover.
On due reflection, the Goves are exactly the sort of petty bourgeoisie snobs who would think about what was on their publicly displayed book shelves. I'm sure Mrs Gove is loving having something to tweet about.
On SK I remember linking to their public websites in February showing the journeys and times each infected person had made so that people could heck if they had been exposed or not. Come May we have absolutely nothing like this. If we are going to make trace and isolate work we need it. That means accepting that your smartphone is used to track you and that information is put into the public domain, no doubt anonymised but probably identifiable to those who know you.
Are we ready for that? I am but I am not sure.
What has this government done to make its opponents trust it?
This would be a tough sell anyway and having a government led by figures who revel in playing fast and loose with data is only going to make it harder.
I think that Brits feel that way about every government. We have a healthy distrust of authority. Remember the arguments about ID cards under Blair? The question is whether enough people can be persuaded to take part. It has to be voluntary.
The issues with such an app are these:-
1. What is done with the information collected? 2. Who has access to it and what can they use it for? Not just information-sharing within the public sector but whether it is sold to private companies for private gain. 3. What are the controls on its use and how can we trust them? 4. How long is the information is held for and is it deleted once no longer needed? 5. The security of the app ie ensuring that it does not make hacking of other personal information / systems easier.
Similar issues arise with the Coronavirus Regulations - very oppressive legislation, passed in days. We need to keep a very close eye on them to make sure that they are repealed at the earliest possible time. Power grabs by authorities have a tendency to stay far beyond their sell by date, if we are not careful.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
A poll taken at the beginning of lockdown 5 weeks ago. I doubt you would get those results now judging by the fact that more and more people are ignoring the rules. Try again with a poll from a week ago
Most people are complying with the lockdown still
Not in my town they aren't. Maybe where you live but don't judge everywhere by that. Saturday the high st was full of people hanging around in groups chatting
Were most of your town hanging around less then 2 metres apart chatting? I doubt it
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
Because he is a social liberal fooling his Hard Brexit base. Or possibly devoid of core belief and thus fooling all who support him.
As per my original post. Which is looking impeccable.
Again Hard Brexit is not a social liberal v conservative issue.
Not exclusively. Of course not. Hard Brexiteers are not all Farage types. But lots of them are. And "Boris" managed to appeal to this section of the electorate. Hence Farage killed off and an 80 seat majority. Well done "Boris". To make them think he shares their values and world view when he doesn't took great political skill.
There - if we put it positively like that, so we don't say your hero "fooled" them, we say that it just shows what a "winner" he is, does this make you a teeny bit happier?
Warms my heart to see the left, whose last PM wanted everyone to have mandatory ID cards and a massive associated state database, suddenly discover the virtues of personal freedom and the evils of state surveillance.
If an app is off the table, how else would tracking and tracing work?
I don't have a problem with ID cards. I have a drivers license and a passport and other ID so whats the problem with pulling all of those into one as so many other countries do. A world of difference between an ID card with a chip (ooh scary) and an app that uploads your position every hour of the day so they can see who you've been meeting with.
every hour? It's easier on a program level to do it in real time.
But if you are in public, surely anyone is allowed to know where you are?
Now, Apple don't like anybody exploiting their OS for any reason. What happens if they decide to neuter this exploit?
I'll be surprised if Apple doesn't close that exploit, as an app should only be able to make requests for background activity not force it by using an exploit. As soon as the NHS release the app that exploit will be in the wild, and Apple won't want others using it.
If the Apple version works as has been suggested, by using an exploit in IOS, it's not going to even make it as far as the App Store.
The Android version will have different problems, due to the huge number of device types and software versions out there there will be millions of phones on which it doesn't work correctly, if it works at all.
Not to mention the huge privacy implications, especially anything involving compulsion by government or effective compulsion by private organisations.
It will work on Android phones running Android 5.0 and above, which is about 95% of phones currently using the Google Play Store, and you need BLE support which I would expect to be almost as widely supported as it predates Android 5.0.
What makes you think it will work on 5.0, apparently the app the americans have only works on 6.0 onwards
That's what it said in the API documents.
No idea what the american app is using, but we do know that the uk one isn't going to use the api
Android 5.0 is when Google added BLE support to the OS. Google thinks that's enough to do contact tracing by proximity detection, and I can't see any obvious reason why centralised data collection would change that.
For all those horrified about giving up your information to the Gov't, @HYUFD approach is favoured overwhemingly in the polling.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
There needs to be a high degree of consent for this programme to work. So you also make the effort to get people on board. There probably also needs to be a degree of compulsion to get the coverage. What form that compulsion takes has to be worked out, but the basic deal is that the system enables you conveniently to do activities that are prevented by lockdown.
And those that refuse will also go out doing those activities
There are a few ifs in this. But if the bulk of people accept contact apps enable more and safer activity and if the government applies the rules in an intelligent way, I think that group of refuseniks would be quite small.
percentage of over 65's in uk population is 18%, percentage of over 65's with a smartphone is 18% so there is already 14.76% of the population without an app.
Down a notch 55 to 65 45% dont have a smart phone I expect that to be another 8 to 9% of population added without an app almost at a quarter of people already
Another good reason for all moderate, non-headbanging Brexit-delusionaries to lend their support to SKS
Wouldn't it be better if he said it was or wasn't ending though ? I mean for clarity.
Sounds like Starmer is keeping the Single Market option open. His strategy seems to be 'Let's not mention Brexit". Either it will blow over or it will go pear shaped, at which point people will be looking for alternatives.
Yes, the next general election looks like continued hard Brexit and WTO terms with Boris or rejoin the single market with Starmer and the LDs and SNP
Which will be one of the reasons, "Boris" as you so lovingly refer to him as, will lose. The main reason will be that Starmer is not Corbyn or "Boris". And Bozo will be grateful, because he will have got the badge that he so longed to have, but he will no longer have to find ways to dodge the hard work
Meanwhile in the real world Boris has already won. If Labour wins after 14 years of Tory governments then so be it.
Sense "Boris" has become like Liverpool FC for you. In which case, fine, but you're on the hook for life. That's what true fandom is. 20 years from now, Liverpool might be wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and "Boris" might be doing a five stretch for something slippery and beyond the pale, but you - you will still have to keep churning out the love. This is the deal so I hope you are going in with eyes open.
You're right. I'm not a glory hunter, I support what I want to through thick and thin. What's wrong with that?
On sports I supported my clubs through thick and thin. I grew up used to disappointments, despite being born early 80s so can barely remember some Liverpool success my memories are more from the 90s.
I grew up in Australia in the 90s a "Pome Bastard" supporting English cricket during The Ashes. I remained an England fan through thick and thin surrounded by Australians in the 1990s. If that didn't break me what makes you think mid table mediocrity will do?
Same in politics. I am an unabashed liberal Conservative, aka a libertarian. I believe in economically dry, socially liberal Conservatives like Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson. I oppose social conservativism or left wing economics and my views don't change to match what the leadership of any particular party says. When May led the party I was vocal in opposition to "my" party because her vicious "Go Home" politics do not represent me.
Here is what you need to ponder. "Boris" is popular with a great many people who are decidedly not "socially liberal". It leaves 3 possibilities.
(i) He IS a social liberal and is fooling his Get Brexit Done base. (ii) He is NOT a social liberal and is fooling you (and those like you). (iii) He is devoid of core belief and is fooling EVERYONE who supports him.
You will be interested to hear that the most likely answer is a (i) with a generous helping of (iii).
What makes you think "Get Brexit Done" is socially illiberal?
What fills me with confidence is decades of listening to him speak. He has consistently been liberal - including during the referendum campaign. He isn't some Farage/IDS/HYUFD social conservative headbanger.
Some Brexit supporters are socially liberal but a large number are not. Those for whom Farage had great appeal, for example. Few social liberals there.
It's a 2+2 = 4 point again, Philip, I'm afraid. Best to just accept it.
You are right Farage is not socially liberal. I despise Farage.
But there is a reason Boris worked with Gove etc in Vote Leave and not Farage etc in Leave.EU - why do you think that is?
Because he is a social liberal fooling his Hard Brexit base. Or possibly devoid of core belief and thus fooling all who support him.
As per my original post. Which is looking impeccable.
Again Hard Brexit is not a social liberal v conservative issue.
Not exclusively. Of course not. Hard Brexiteers are not all Farage types. But lots of them are. And "Boris" managed to appeal to this section of the electorate. Hence Farage killed off and an 80 seat majority. Well done "Boris". To make them think he shares their values and world view when he doesn't took great political skill.
There - if we put it positively like that, so we don't say your hero "fooled" them, we say that it just shows what a "winner" he is, does this make you a teeny bit happier?
Winning depends upon building a big tent yes but he never fooled anyone and never pretended to be (or campaigned with) Farage.
Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
I doubt it, I think a marketing campaign saying to download this to keep you safe and "protect the NHS" along with co-operation from social media etc would surely be sufficient to get that percentage take up.
Advertise it across Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, Instagram etc and on TV etc and quite quickly the takeup will be up there.
1) No where in the bbc article does it mention 80%
No, there was another article which you were too lazy to look for yourself. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896 As someone so disturbed by the whole idea, I'd have though you might want to know what you're opposing...
Well as you cited an article and said 80% it was natural to assume it came from the cited article
Apparently the epidemiologists reckon it would need 80% take-up by smartphone users (which would equate to just over half the population) to effectively suppress the virus post lockdown.
A legislated, and watertight sunset clause is surely required if it's going to get anything near that figure.
I doubt it, I think a marketing campaign saying to download this to keep you safe and "protect the NHS" along with co-operation from social media etc would surely be sufficient to get that percentage take up.
Advertise it across Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, Instagram etc and on TV etc and quite quickly the takeup will be up there.
1) No where in the bbc article does it mention 80%
No, there was another article which you were too lazy to look for yourself. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896 As someone so disturbed by the whole idea, I'd have though you might want to know what you're opposing...
Well as you cited an article and said 80% it was natural to assume it came from the cited article
For all those horrified about giving up your information to the Gov't, @HYUFD approach is favoured overwhemingly in the polling.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
There needs to be a high degree of consent for this programme to work. So you also make the effort to get people on board. There probably also needs to be a degree of compulsion to get the coverage. What form that compulsion takes has to be worked out, but the basic deal is that the system enables you conveniently to do activities that are prevented by lockdown.
And those that refuse will also go out doing those activities
There are a few ifs in this. But if the bulk of people accept contact apps enable more and safer activity and if the government applies the rules in an intelligent way, I think that group of refuseniks would be quite small.
percentage of over 65's in uk population is 18%, percentage of over 65's with a smartphone is 18% so there is already 14.76% of the population without an app.
Down a notch 55 to 65 45% dont have a smart phone I expect that to be another 8 to 9% of population added without an app almost at a quarter of people already
For what it's worth my parents (approaching their 70s) said they would both use it.
How's about the Windows phones, Blackberries, Huaweis, Nokias, all those people who have a dumb phone, or no mobile phone at all? These groups are disproportionally likely to be young, old and poorer than the general population.
Obviously you can't cover everybody with an app. So we either need to dish out smartphones so everyone can run the app, or more likely BLE wristbands (registered to a person) that then rely on smartphones belonging to other people to do the data collection.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
A poll taken at the beginning of lockdown 5 weeks ago. I doubt you would get those results now judging by the fact that more and more people are ignoring the rules. Try again with a poll from a week ago
Most people are complying with the lockdown still
Not in my town they aren't. Maybe where you live but don't judge everywhere by that. Saturday the high st was full of people hanging around in groups chatting
I came across two groups chatting yesterday whilst they (And I) were out on our allowed exercise. They were about approx 4 metres apart, sprinted through the middle of them mind (They wanted me to pass) ! If social distancing is being maintained, chatting outdoors is a very low transmission risk.
The lockdown is crumbling. My octogenarian neighbour has abandoned it. I changed the coil packs in her dead husband's E65 Beemer and she's just zigzagged off down the road to the supermarket in it.
You can jail a revolutionary but you can't jail a revolution, Malcolm X.
For all those horrified about giving up your information to the Gov't, @HYUFD approach is favoured overwhemingly in the polling.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
There needs to be a high degree of consent for this programme to work. So you also make the effort to get people on board. There probably also needs to be a degree of compulsion to get the coverage. What form that compulsion takes has to be worked out, but the basic deal is that the system enables you conveniently to do activities that are prevented by lockdown.
And those that refuse will also go out doing those activities
There are a few ifs in this. But if the bulk of people accept contact apps enable more and safer activity and if the government applies the rules in an intelligent way, I think that group of refuseniks would be quite small.
percentage of over 65's in uk population is 18%, percentage of over 65's with a smartphone is 18% so there is already 14.76% of the population without an app.
Down a notch 55 to 65 45% dont have a smart phone I expect that to be another 8 to 9% of population added without an app almost at a quarter of people already
"80% of smartphone users" by definition won't include those who aren't smartphone users.
That's like discussing what percentage of children should be in school and saying "x% of the UK is over 18 and don't go to school".
On SK I remember linking to their public websites in February showing the journeys and times each infected person had made so that people could heck if they had been exposed or not. Come May we have absolutely nothing like this. If we are going to make trace and isolate work we need it. That means accepting that your smartphone is used to track you and that information is put into the public domain, no doubt anonymised but probably identifiable to those who know you.
Are we ready for that? I am but I am not sure.
What has this government done to make its opponents trust it?
This would be a tough sell anyway and having a government led by figures who revel in playing fast and loose with data is only going to make it harder.
I think that Brits feel that way about every government. We have a healthy distrust of authority. Remember the arguments about ID cards under Blair? The question is whether enough people can be persuaded to take part. It has to be voluntary.
The issues with such an app are these:-
1. What is done with the information collected? 2. Who has access to it and what can they use it for? Not just information-sharing within the public sector but whether it is sold to private companies for private gain. 3. What are the controls on its use and how can we trust them? 4. How long is the information is held for and is it deleted once no longer needed? 5. The security of the app ie ensuring that it does not make hacking of other personal information / systems easier.
Similar issues arise with the Coronavirus Regulations - very oppressive legislation, passed in days. We need to keep a very close eye on them to make sure that they are repealed at the earliest possible time. Power grabs by authorities have a tendency to stay far beyond their sell by date, if we are not careful.
The data is recorded under an anonymous ID, rather than by the person's name.
If and when someone starts showing symptoms, or tests positive for Covid-19, they are able to share that on the app.
The app then sends a notification warning of possible infection to all those phone users to have come in requisite proximity recently....
What kind of mug would trust Johnson, Gove et al, you would have to be mentally deranged.
Funnily enough Nicola is outlining the same test trace isolate policy just now on Sky and it will be a key part but will need to combine safe distancing and use of masks. Also people will need to self isolate if they have been near a covid infection
Also increased testing and the use of a digital system. Proximity app is being led by UK government and is an important part of any system
To be fair Nicola is doing a good job
Maybe a bit more constructive comments Malc would add to the debate.
What is the advice he has taken from the house authorities that he refers to? That should be published PDQ.
If I was cynical I suspect he said “can I raise it in the house” and they thought for about 12 seconds and then said “don’t be so f*****g stupid it’s a conflict of interests”
So he used it as a threat, even though it is an empty one.
Any other job in the land and he would have been sacked by now, only in the crooked houses of parliament can you get away with stuff like this.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
These kind of polls are worthless. If you ask the question, "should the government spend 1000 pounds per person per day jailing those who break restrictions of movement?" you suddenly find that the percentage in favour drops to 10%
The lockdown is crumbling. My octogenarian neighbour has abandoned it. I changed the coil packs in her dead husband's E65 Beemer and she's just zigzagged off down the road to the supermarket in it.
You can jail a revolutionary but you can't jail a revolution, Malcolm X.
By the way any labour leaning folk here might want to suggest next election running adverts featuring Hyufd's posts with the tag line....this is what a real conservative thinks
Fine, it is what most of the public thinks
No it is not
Yes it is.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
A poll taken at the beginning of lockdown 5 weeks ago. I doubt you would get those results now judging by the fact that more and more people are ignoring the rules. Try again with a poll from a week ago
Most people are complying with the lockdown still
Not in my town they aren't. Maybe where you live but don't judge everywhere by that. Saturday the high st was full of people hanging around in groups chatting
I came across two groups chatting yesterday whilst they (And I) were out on our allowed exercise. They were about approx 4 metres apart, sprinted through the middle of them mind (They wanted me to pass) ! If social distancing is being maintained, chatting outdoors is a very low transmission risk.
I wasn't commenting on the transmission risk merely that the lockdown is being less and less observed as time goes by. Walking down my high st was a ghost town the first couple of weeks then slowly has got busier now I would estimate about two thirds of a normal saturday
On SK I remember linking to their public websites in February showing the journeys and times each infected person had made so that people could heck if they had been exposed or not. Come May we have absolutely nothing like this. If we are going to make trace and isolate work we need it. That means accepting that your smartphone is used to track you and that information is put into the public domain, no doubt anonymised but probably identifiable to those who know you.
Are we ready for that? I am but I am not sure.
What has this government done to make its opponents trust it?
This would be a tough sell anyway and having a government led by figures who revel in playing fast and loose with data is only going to make it harder.
I think that Brits feel that way about every government. We have a healthy distrust of authority. Remember the arguments about ID cards under Blair? The question is whether enough people can be persuaded to take part. It has to be voluntary.
The issues with such an app are these:-
1. What is done with the information collected? 2. Who has access to it and what can they use it for? Not just information-sharing within the public sector but whether it is sold to private companies for private gain. 3. What are the controls on its use and how can we trust them? 4. How long is the information is held for and is it deleted once no longer needed? 5. The security of the app ie ensuring that it does not make hacking of other personal information / systems easier.
Similar issues arise with the Coronavirus Regulations - very oppressive legislation, passed in days. We need to keep a very close eye on them to make sure that they are repealed at the earliest possible time. Power grabs by authorities have a tendency to stay far beyond their sell by date, if we are not careful.
The data is recorded under an anonymous ID, rather than by the person's name.
If and when someone starts showing symptoms, or tests positive for Covid-19, they are able to share that on the app.
The app then sends a notification warning of possible infection to all those phone users to have come in requisite proximity recently....
What kind of mug would trust Johnson, Gove et al, you would have to be mentally deranged.
Funnily enough Nicola is outlining the same test trace isolate policy just now on Sky and it will be a key part but will need to combine safe distancing and use of masks. Also people will need to self isolate if they have been near a covid infection
Also increased testing and the use of a digital system. Proximity app is being led by UK government and is an important part of any system
To be fair Nicola is doing a good job
Maybe a bit more constructive comments Malc would add to the debate.
Nicola's trace, test, isolate policy will be a tremendous piece of Scottish ingenuity and a great idea not like chancer Boris's evil trace, track, isolate policy that will be almost identical.
Sky questioning 'why are we broadcasting a self appointed group of scientists'
This independent so called group of alternative scientists are identified by Guido and you could not make it up
Fortunately Sky were not impressed and the media need to be careful of this group spreading disinformation and causing confusion amongst the public
What is their technical expertise? For some reason Guido seems to have been wholly unable to research that.
Their technical expertise appears to be being an aligned group of Corbynista yesmen who think the NHS has been privatised by the Tories.
You're surely not quite that stupid.
The panel does seem more politically motivated than interested in the science. If they were just scientists they'd be publishing their research and models in peer-reviewed journals rather than organising press conferences with the sole intention of embarassing the government.
Regarding treatment protocol for Coronavirus, I am pretty sure that variations on a theme of chloroquin and zinc are the gold standard, despite widespread media hype in the other direction. I follow Dr Berg (keto diet and intermittent fasting) and he has a very methodical way of explaining the science - very much pitched at the layman. This is well worth a watch.
On Brexit, I see Govey saying "I'll recruit pen pushers to tie business up in knots of red tape" and see self-styled true conservatives like HYUFD insisting thats a Good Thing. Business is not going to allow any such thing to happen, even the Tories won't be able to withstand Tesco and Jaguar saying "thats us fucked then" as the economy judders along in the midst of the worst recession we have seen in decades.
People voted for Brexit, they didn't vote for the consequences of Brexit. They haven't a clue how the economy works, how trade works, how manufacturing works, how the supply chain works. They are clueless - they just think that The Man has screwed them too many times and they want to Take Back Control for a change.
Local Brexiteers up here want an end to being told what to do by the EU. They don't want to see an end to local shops and for Tesco shelves to be half empty which is exactly what will happen if we leave with No Deal as anyone who knows anything about how it works (not HYUFD then) will tell you with precise detail. So its an empty threat. "But you voted for this" is what Goebbels said in the penultimate scene in Downfall before he shot himself...
Its a fudge. The "surrender" referred to earlier was that the UK surrendered its sovereignty over NI and agreed to place an intra-British border down the Irish Sea. Thats not a win for anyone including the EU so of course noone is celebrating it. That the government say "oh no we haven't" when presented with the treaty which says "oh yes you have" next to Shagger's signature tells you all you need to know.
They know the voters haven't a clue. They know the voters don't care about the details of what Brexit is. So exactly as they did having thrown NI under the buss they will simply declare victory and everyone will Move On. We won't have Free Movement as neither will a post-viral EU. We will have additional checks as they will also have between France and Germany and that sour-faced Patel troll will say its a triumph of Her Policy.
Northern Ireland Protocol is shaping up to be a massive clusterfuck. We will be in a major treaty dispute at the point when the music stops. No-one will negotiate anything for as long as the dispute lasts, which is the foreseeable future. The Brexiteer government is perfectly happy throwing Northern Ireland under a bus to satisfy their ideological desire for England to be insulated from anything European. People being thrown under buses tend to react, so the government will have problems there too.
Comments
How do you spin that headline?
If Conor Burns is the sort of sh1t who genuinely thinks it's absolutely fine to make these sort of threats (and the fact he threatened the Commissioner suggests he is) he's actually less likely to be guilty of an offence.
59% of voters want those who break restrictions on movement jailed.
66% of voters want the army on the streets to enforce movement restrictions, 79% want a bigger police presence
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/polls/coronavirus1
ONE OF Boris Johnson's closest allies has resigned from the government after he was found guilty of trying to use parliamentary privilege to “intimidate a member of the public” in a row over debt.
Conor Burns, Minister of State for International Trade, faces a seven day ban from the Commons following his intervention in a dispute over a loan reypayment beteween with a company and his father.
You seem to have missed a critical point here. What if one of the Goves are in the mystical category of "people who read these books so the rest of us don't have to"?
But if they ask me to use it, I will.
Anyway it's either giving up your every movement to Crapita/G4S (The Gov't is bound to outsource the weeds of the system), lockdown or death.
People voted for Brexit, they didn't vote for the consequences of Brexit. They haven't a clue how the economy works, how trade works, how manufacturing works, how the supply chain works. They are clueless - they just think that The Man has screwed them too many times and they want to Take Back Control for a change.
Local Brexiteers up here want an end to being told what to do by the EU. They don't want to see an end to local shops and for Tesco shelves to be half empty which is exactly what will happen if we leave with No Deal as anyone who knows anything about how it works (not HYUFD then) will tell you with precise detail. So its an empty threat. "But you voted for this" is what Goebbels said in the penultimate scene in Downfall before he shot himself...
Its a fudge. The "surrender" referred to earlier was that the UK surrendered its sovereignty over NI and agreed to place an intra-British border down the Irish Sea. Thats not a win for anyone including the EU so of course noone is celebrating it. That the government say "oh no we haven't" when presented with the treaty which says "oh yes you have" next to Shagger's signature tells you all you need to know.
They know the voters haven't a clue. They know the voters don't care about the details of what Brexit is. So exactly as they did having thrown NI under the buss they will simply declare victory and everyone will Move On. We won't have Free Movement as neither will a post-viral EU. We will have additional checks as they will also have between France and Germany and that sour-faced Patel troll will say its a triumph of Her Policy.
Thought not....
If an app is off the table, how else would tracking and tracing work?
https://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/politics/council/first-nightingale-care-home-opens-four-star-cedar-court-hotel-ainley-top-2841491
Tbh, if we can use these, and the field hospitals, to increase isolation then we should do so.
One thing happening much faster in the UK than it did in Italy is hospitalisations going down. I don't necessarily see that as a positive if we're still not getting people into hospital soon enough or discharging them too early. It is a measure/target that could drive perverse incentives.
Do we even know Gove even read the book? Could easily be an unwanted birthday or Christmas present. Could belong to someone else in the family.
https://order-order.com/2020/05/04/not-independent-activist-stuffed-shadow-sage/
A good guess the % market for the betting firms perhaps!
Id go for 35-45% sign up in the first month.
I don't see any polling yet on whether your parent's or child's phone having a dead battery should be able to lead to their arrest and imprisonment, or denial of entry to a pharmacy or grocery store.
The government is elected to govern and do whats right not blindly follow opinion polling.
This independent so called group of alternative scientists are identified by Guido and you could not make it up
Fortunately Sky were not impressed and the media need to be careful of this group spreading disinformation and causing confusion amongst the public
PS I'm not sure I believe this claim, the idea of relying on a 0day not being patched is too stupid.
PB is far more liberal and libertarian than the average voter is
The parties actual adverts, PPBs etc steers clear of such trivial nonsense.
But, moreso I don't believe they belong to that category because I was unable to find anything public written by either of them which debunks The Bell Curve (which, after all, is the definition of that category). Have I missed something by one of them?
"I think the main point I’m making is that an independent science advisory group really needs to be dominated by people whose income is not determined by the fact they are working for the Government."
I'd be surprised if the people on SAGE were salaried employees of the government. They seem to be under the impression SAGE are just a bunch of yes-men.
Several members on Sage, as well as scientists on its advisory subcommittees, are known to be frustrated at what they view as a culture of secrecy that risks straining public trust in the government’s response to Covid-19.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/revealed-dominic-cummings-on-secret-scientific-advisory-group-for-covid-19
Susan Michie (Corbynista and now on the alternative SAGE for Corbynistas group) - was member of the UK Government’s Covid-19 Behavioural Science Advisory Group. Covid-19 Behavioural Science Advisory Group is tasked with presenting evidence to the Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies (SAGE)
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/informing-and-translating-evidence-base
The third paragraph is equally absurd. The shelves won't be empty.
The fourth paragraph is nonsense too. NI wasn't surrendered, the protocol requires ongoing Stormont consent to stay in place. Devolution is well established in this nation now.
The second and fifth paragraphs are just ranting and insulting the intelligence of people, it has no actual point.
But apart from that . . .
On due reflection, the Goves are exactly the sort of petty bourgeoisie snobs who would think about what was on their publicly displayed book shelves. I'm sure Mrs Gove is loving having something to tweet about.
There - if we put it positively like that, so we don't say your hero "fooled" them, we say that it just shows what a "winner" he is, does this make you a teeny bit happier?
Labour are becoming vaguely electable.
Down a notch 55 to 65 45% dont have a smart phone I expect that to be another 8 to 9% of population added without an app almost at a quarter of people already
You can jail a revolutionary but you can't jail a revolution, Malcolm X.
That's like discussing what percentage of children should be in school and saying "x% of the UK is over 18 and don't go to school".
Also increased testing and the use of a digital system. Proximity app is being led by UK government and is an important part of any system
To be fair Nicola is doing a good job
Maybe a bit more constructive comments Malc would add to the debate.
If you ask the question, "should the government spend 1000 pounds per person per day jailing those who break restrictions of movement?" you suddenly find that the percentage in favour drops to 10%
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SZEONtCP30g
I can only think widespread attempts to discredit this treatment are a result of the early Trump endorsement.