I thought this virus was meant to be harmless to people under 60 years old.
That's only what those who haven't seen anyone with it say...
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.
I suspect Johnson's problems are partly mental as he knows that right now things are only going to get worse. Much worse.
The Sunday Times report shows how the economy is in an awful state.
It looks like the economic rebound is far below what the government expected, though why anybody would expect a rebound with the current rules and guidelines in place is beyond me. The disincentives are pretty big.
There must be panic at the treasury as the bills soar into the stratosphere and people show few signs of going back to work.
The horrible dilemma that Sunak and Johnson have got themselves in is that if they do what is takes to get Britain going by loosening lockdown more and earlier, the scientists will scream louder than they already are. Scientists they claimed they were following.
PLus, furlough means that the voters are on the scientists' side and not theirs. Why would anybody want furlough to end?
Well if you don’t qualify for any help, like me, and your earnings are down about 70%, the reasons are pretty obvious.
Plus anyone with a brain in their head is going to worry about whether there is going to be a job to go back to, a message that is going to be reinforced by almost daily large scale redundancies from here on.
As usual, it is only the public sector that is divorced from reality.
How many people are on furlough now? 8.4m? I wonder how many of those are long term - it doesn't feel to be a wild guess to suggest that 3m or so will lose their jobs as furlough winds down. They may be lucky in being able to pick up jobs from working age parents where 2 days a week schooling from September makes it impossible for them to work full time.
Either way this is an economic and social shitshow. We appear to be on track for the worst of both worlds - an infection rate that is high enough to stop us trying to go back to normal, that prohibits Brits almost uniquely from being allowed to have beach holidays abroad this year. And an economic collapse caused by not being able to get people back to work safely.
Those international comparisons the government was so keen on when it made them look good and then dropped like a brick when it made them look bad? Just think of the cut through they will have when France and Denmark and pretty much everywhere else have largely beaten this thing and are in recovery, whilst we continue to have an underlying high infection rate and flareups caused by "go have a BBQ" pronouncements.
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Depends on the State. I read he has been charged with manslaughter so I guess it is possible in Minnesota
Fifty sets of laws over there.. it must be hell for lawyers
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time (2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house (3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes (4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
Well, if you think a thoughtful header along those lines is possible, why don’t you submit one ?
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?
The term homicide is useful for reporters wishing not to be prejudicial.
Rubbish. Reality (and economic consequences in particular) happened.
Given the government is unable to tell us the current Covid alert level on its own scale, introduced by the Prime Minister just three weeks ago and the main political development in the interim was Dominic Cummings’ grand tour, you have to suspect that was the reason it has effectively been junked.
The Covid alert scale was always a gimmick but it was not designed to be reviewed on a daily basis. Is it not due to be announced today or tomorrow?
The reality is that the economic consequences are horrendous and we are being driven to relaxing the lockdown with none of the essential elements in place namely adequate testing capacity, fast testing capacity and adequate tracing capacity (which goes beyond the lack of an App).
The lack of focus on what was required to get out of lockdown is a disgrace and a further consequence of incompetence at the political level and ineptitude at the scientific level. But there is no choice. We need to live and die with the consequences of those mistakes.
I just find this obsession with Cummings frankly bizarre.
The Covid alert system was due to be updated on Thursday. It wasn’t. Unlockdown continues.
The obsession, as you put it, with Dominic Cummings relates to the government’s moral authority to lead. It has lost this, which the general public see only too clearly. From this point on, Prime Ministerial instructions are going to be treated as impositions not moral guidance. This is a serious loss in a collective struggle.
It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).
The UK at the moment seems to have a partisan news echo-chamber (singular), I don't see how that is any better.
Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.
The lack of alternative views means that the TV news programmes have no real competition. They can all lead with the partisan irrelevant story of the day, and the viewers just have to take it.
Most of those who complain about TV news in this country are in the 10% most extreme left or right. Their complaints are usually that the news contradicts their partisan worldview which they put down to “bias” rather than consider that what they believe may be wrong.
A quick glance at Twitter shows both extreme left and right attacking the BBC, for example. They can’t both be right.
I find the attitude of “people are angry that the news doesn’t confirm their bullsh*t, so let’s start a news channel to make up news to confirm it” profoundly disturbing.
Exactly right. They also claim that the broadcast media have lost all public trust but that is not borne out by the polling.
What they yearn for is a Fox News channel that can broadcast its "alternative facts" with impunity. Fortunately we have regulations in the UK that prevent that and long may they remain.
Having announced the dead cat of easing lockdown to try and move on from the Domnishambles (which didn't work), theGovernment is now directly at odds with the science.
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time (2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house (3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes (4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
Ha - you'll never see that in a million years.
Nor will there ever be a national witch-hunt for Duffield's career to be permanently destroyed, because she's a Labour MP, you see, and therefore good by definition...
Good to see your normal level of partisan crap extends to weekends
Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?" It's crystal clear the health experts do not want us to ease lockdown. The government are pressing on regardless. The plan pre-Cummings was to hide behind SAGE if things went wrong. What's the plan now when things go wrong, say what about Rosie Duffield?
As for Americans, what the fuck is wrong with them?
I don't think "led by science" is a particularly sensible touchstone. The UK government apparently has lost interest in getting the infection levels down, which means that Test, Track and Isolate won't work and we will probably be in a debilitating and death-inducing semi-lockdown for the foreseeable future.
The scientists are pointing out the consequences of the government's choices. The people in this government just don't accept the consequences of their decisions (see Brexit).
The frustrating thing is that essentially the same error that was made in March is being repeated less than three months later.
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?
The term homicide is useful for reporters wishing not to be prejudicial.
DJL's first rule of news, especially on weekends -- our lot mindlessly parrot whatever they hear on the American channels, which is one reason we get so much of what is really just American domestic news. The problem is worse at weekends because the grown-ups are at home and decisions are made by interns and juniors.
Rubbish. Reality (and economic consequences in particular) happened.
Given the government is unable to tell us the current Covid alert level on its own scale, introduced by the Prime Minister just three weeks ago and the main political development in the interim was Dominic Cummings’ grand tour, you have to suspect that was the reason it has effectively been junked.
The Covid alert scale was always a gimmick but it was not designed to be reviewed on a daily basis. Is it not due to be announced today or tomorrow?
The reality is that the economic consequences are horrendous and we are being driven to relaxing the lockdown with none of the essential elements in place namely adequate testing capacity, fast testing capacity and adequate tracing capacity (which goes beyond the lack of an App).
The lack of focus on what was required to get out of lockdown is a disgrace and a further consequence of incompetence at the political level and ineptitude at the scientific level. But there is no choice. We need to live and die with the consequences of those mistakes.
I just find this obsession with Cummings frankly bizarre.
The Covid alert system was due to be updated on Thursday. It wasn’t. Unlockdown continues.
The obsession, as you put it, with Dominic Cummings relates to the government’s moral authority to lead. It has lost this, which the general public see only too clearly. From this point on, Prime Ministerial instructions are going to be treated as impositions not moral guidance. This is a serious loss in a collective struggle.
Philip Thompson continually talked about Personal Judgement overriding civic / moral duty. The problem is that for 95% of the population Personal Judgement is overridden by personal desire.
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time (2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house (3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes (4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
As a point of correction, the Mail on Sunday fabricated the the story about one of the witnesses breaking lockdown rules (the subheading doesn't even match their own story). [It also by the by doesn't detract from the fact that he saw Cummings break his own lockdown]
The journalist claims the doctored claim wasn't used in her story.
There is some irony in the Mail using the headline "You couldn't make it up". They just did.
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time (2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house (3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes (4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
Let’s believe all these details just as you state them. Dominic Cummings is still an arrogant oaf who believes the laws and guidelines that were clearly laid out didn’t apply to him, and the Prime Minister has decided to back him in that judgement.
Although Durham police have only indicated that to be the case for the Barnard Castle trip.
Rubbish. Reality (and economic consequences in particular) happened.
Given the government is unable to tell us the current Covid alert level on its own scale, introduced by the Prime Minister just three weeks ago and the main political development in the interim was Dominic Cummings’ grand tour, you have to suspect that was the reason it has effectively been junked.
The Covid alert scale was always a gimmick but it was not designed to be reviewed on a daily basis. Is it not due to be announced today or tomorrow?
The reality is that the economic consequences are horrendous and we are being driven to relaxing the lockdown with none of the essential elements in place namely adequate testing capacity, fast testing capacity and adequate tracing capacity (which goes beyond the lack of an App).
The lack of focus on what was required to get out of lockdown is a disgrace and a further consequence of incompetence at the political level and ineptitude at the scientific level. But there is no choice. We need to live and die with the consequences of those mistakes.
I just find this obsession with Cummings frankly bizarre.
The Cummings affair is partly responsible for the current policy mess you outline. But otherwise I agree. With the possible exception of the Treasury, government response to the crisis has been appallingly flatfooted and dilatory. There seems now to be no coherent strategy. I’m not sure there’s a good way out of the mess.
Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?" It's crystal clear the health experts do not want us to ease lockdown. The government are pressing on regardless. The plan pre-Cummings was to hide behind SAGE if things went wrong. What's the plan now when things go wrong, say what about Rosie Duffield?
As for Americans, what the fuck is wrong with them?
I don't think "led by science" is a particularly sensible touchstone. The UK government apparently has lost interest in getting the infection levels down, which means that Test, Track and Isolate won't work and we will probably be in a debilitating and death-inducing semi-lockdown for the foreseeable future.
The scientists are pointing out the consequences of the government's choices. The people in this government just don't accept the consequences of their decisions (see Brexit).
Yes. My sense is that TTI is a unicorn (for us) and we probably have a second wave coming followed by reversal of the relaxation.
Silver lining. More disease out there will help the vaccine testing.
I thought this virus was meant to be harmless to people under 60 years old.
That's only what those who haven't seen anyone with it say...
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.
Whilst I accept that Johnson may be feeling 100% but I strongly suspect that the virus is being used as the excuse for traits that were there before hand.
He was lazy, waffled and paid little attention to detail before he became ill.
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time (2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house (3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes (4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
None of this is relevant to the direct “testimony” we have from Cummings himself which revealed him to have flouted both the spirit and the actuality of the guidance and regulations.
While stoutly maintaining his innocence.
I am incredibly bored with the story, but anyone defending Cummings just outs themself as a partisan bullshit-artist.
My point here was giving away by the first sentence.
It’s on editorial bias on this site. (Which is important because we know that many influential people lurk).
I’m incredibly bored by the story - it was partially true, blown up by partisan actors, mischief makers, journalists and others with an agenda. But the witch hunt was unedifying and unhelpful in dealing with what is a very difficult and challenging series of decisions for the government.
I remain of the view that the media as a whole has had a very bad crisis
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time (2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house (3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes (4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
Let’s believe all these details just as you state them. Dominic Cummings is still an arrogant oaf who believes the laws and guidelines that were clearly laid out didn’t apply to him, and the Prime Minister has decided to back him in that judgement.
Although Durham police have only indicated that to be the case for the Barnard Castle trip.
The Durham trip did not break the law but it did contravene the (non legal) guidelines - which were presented to the public by Johnson and his government as instructions.
It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).
The UK at the moment seems to have a partisan news echo-chamber (singular), I don't see how that is any better.
Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.
The lack of alternative views means that the TV news programmes have no real competition. They can all lead with the partisan irrelevant story of the day, and the viewers just have to take it.
Most of those who complain about TV news in this country are in the 10% most extreme left or right. Their complaints are usually that the news contradicts their partisan worldview which they put down to “bias” rather than consider that what they believe may be wrong.
A quick glance at Twitter shows both extreme left and right attacking the BBC, for example. They can’t both be right.
I find the attitude of “people are angry that the news doesn’t confirm their bullsh*t, so let’s start a news channel to make up news to confirm it” profoundly disturbing.
I do think that the media has lost its way.
I mentioned use of the term "murdered" for George Floyd today - presupposing the police officer's guilt. The Maitlis introduction is another one - conflating opinion with reporting.
The BBC has a more specific challenge with a liberal bias (not party political but mindset) which shows up mainly in their story selection.
It's better than MSNBC/CNN/Fox, but it's by no means good.
The Maitlis defence was that the opening was setting up the questions to be examined in the programme. Biased in isolation but not in context.
On the BBC's so-called institutional bias, it is remarkable that CCHQ keeps recruiting from that tainted pool.
Many in the Conservative party share the same mindset issues.
It’s not “tainted” but it’s groupthink. That’s not healthy for a government or a national broadcaster
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?
I’ve only seen a bit and it seems to me to be a lot of things. Whether it rises to any particular level I don’t know.
But for the BBC* to refer to the “murder of George Floyd” presupposes it IS murder and therefore the policeman IS guilty.
Use of words really matters.
* in fairness it was a guest (I think from the Sunday telegraph)
Edit: @AlastairMeeks makes the point I was trying to make rather better than me at 10:27
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
Thankfully, last night’s launch (first human launch from the States in nine years) is the start of a much larger programme, which should see men back on the moon in the next few years.
I agree with you entirely, that it’s sad to see such regressions in technology over time. Nothing has yet replaced Concorde either.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
The reports in today’s Times tell us what we already knew: that the government is run by Cummings and that Boris is no longer mentally or psychologically up to the job. If he ever was.
If Raab did punch Cummings, he goes up in my estimation, and actually I do rate him as Foreign Secretary. I still don’t understand how the author of “Assault on Liberty” ended up advocating the prorogation of Parliament, though.
Libertarians do not like parliament. They would be anarchists if only they had the courage of their convictions
I think you're right, I consider myself a libertarian but in reality I'm probably an anarchist. I dislike not just parliament but every level of bureaucracy, we simply have far too many politicians.
The Rosie Duffield story won’t be going anywhere regardless of the attempts to suggest it’s similar to the Cummings one .
She did not help make the rules , she resigned her shadow cabinet post and apologized .
I'm not sure I'd agree it's going nowhere. The atmosphere's febrile. She did something that was at best very stupid and at worst illegal. There will be a lot of anger and her constituents will probably give her hell.
However, the apology and resignation probably mitigate the wider damage. The admission will also help. Most people will probably think, 'well, yeah, maybe I would have done/did do something like that and I'm lucky I didn't get caught.' Finally, unlike Cummings she is quite popular. Who was it said of Cummings, 'he has no enemies, but all his friends hate him?'
And I agree with @DougSeal that if Cummings had come clean and apologised he might have ridden this storm out with limited damage. Saying, 'I was very anxious to be quarantined in a house with a nice garden and I wanted to treat my wife on her birthday' and Tory voters would have given him a pass because they would have understood. Not Labour voters locked in their tiny flats in Walsall or Mossside, but he doesn't care about them. It's the way thinks he can get away with such stupid lies that is destroying him and the government.
I would add, this is doubly reckless as there is a very real risk it will rebound on his son, who is being made to look like a human shield for his father's chronic arrogance and lack of judgement.
As far as I am aware Cummings is the only person in the public eye to be caught out breaking lockdown whilst having the virus. That is an important distinction.
I think the public treat breaking quarantine far more seriously than breaking lockdown and rightly so.
I thought this virus was meant to be harmless to people under 60 years old.
That's only what those who haven't seen anyone with it say...
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.
I suspect Johnson's problems are partly mental as he knows that right now things are only going to get worse. Much worse.
The Sunday Times report shows how the economy is in an awful state.
It looks like the economic rebound is far below what the government expected, though why anybody would expect a rebound with the current rules and guidelines in place is beyond me. The disincentives are pretty big.
There must be panic at the treasury as the bills soar into the stratosphere and people show few signs of going back to work.
The horrible dilemma that Sunak and Johnson have got themselves in is that if they do what is takes to get Britain going by loosening lockdown more and earlier, the scientists will scream louder than they already are. Scientists they claimed they were following.
PLus, furlough means that the voters are on the scientists' side and not theirs. Why would anybody want furlough to end?
Well if you don’t qualify for any help, like me, and your earnings are down about 70%, the reasons are pretty obvious.
Plus anyone with a brain in their head is going to worry about whether there is going to be a job to go back to, a message that is going to be reinforced by almost daily large scale redundancies from here on.
As usual, it is only the public sector that is divorced from reality.
How many people are on furlough now? 8.4m? I wonder how many of those are long term - it doesn't feel to be a wild guess to suggest that 3m or so will lose their jobs as furlough winds down. They may be lucky in being able to pick up jobs from working age parents where 2 days a week schooling from September makes it impossible for them to work full time.
Either way this is an economic and social shitshow. We appear to be on track for the worst of both worlds - an infection rate that is high enough to stop us trying to go back to normal, that prohibits Brits almost uniquely from being allowed to have beach holidays abroad this year. And an economic collapse caused by not being able to get people back to work safely.
Those international comparisons the government was so keen on when it made them look good and then dropped like a brick when it made them look bad? Just think of the cut through they will have when France and Denmark and pretty much everywhere else have largely beaten this thing and are in recovery, whilst we continue to have an underlying high infection rate and flareups caused by "go have a BBQ" pronouncements.
I agree with much of that.
But...
Do you have any evidence for these ‘flare ups’?
I only ask because week after week on here we’ve been assured that people’s reluctance to lock themselves inside their flats when it’s sunny outside will result in spikes.
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Difference is “arrest for the murder of” is clearly part of the court process.
“Was murdered” is a statement of fact about the situation
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Depends on the State. I read he has been charged with manslaughter so I guess it is possible in Minnesota
Fifty sets of laws over there.. it must be hell for lawyers
There are some on here who would watch a video of a volcano exploding and go "until the geologists and vulcanologists have had a chance to examine the evidence I deplore your use of the emotive word 'eruption'.
Only if the volcano was due to be prosecuted in a court of law
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time (2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house (3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes (4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
Well, if you think a thoughtful header along those lines is possible, why don’t you submit one ?
Because I have better things to do with my time. The occasional headers I write tends to be focused on history and constitutional politics
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
Thankfully, last night’s launch (first human launch from the States in nine years) is the start of a much larger programme, which should see men back on the moon in the next few years.
I agree with you entirely, that it’s sad to see such regressions in technology over time. Nothing has yet replaced Concorde either.
Coincidentally, the golden age of space exploration also coincided with a non-so-golden age of civil unrest:
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?
I’ve only seen a bit and it seems to me to be a lot of things. Whether it rises to any particular level I don’t know.
But for the BBC* to refer to the “murder of George Floyd” presupposes it IS murder and therefore the policeman IS guilty.
Use of words really matters.
* in fairness it was a guest (I think from the Sunday telegraph)
Edit: @AlastairMeeks makes the point I was trying to make rather better than me at 10:27
It's not saying who did it though. Perhaps it wasn't the cop. Innocent till proved guilty.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).
The UK at the moment seems to have a partisan news echo-chamber (singular), I don't see how that is any better.
Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.
The lack of alternative views means that the TV news programmes have no real competition. They can all lead with the partisan irrelevant story of the day, and the viewers just have to take it.
Most of those who complain about TV news in this country are in the 10% most extreme left or right. Their complaints are usually that the news contradicts their partisan worldview which they put down to “bias” rather than consider that what they believe may be wrong.
A quick glance at Twitter shows both extreme left and right attacking the BBC, for example. They can’t both be right.
I find the attitude of “people are angry that the news doesn’t confirm their bullsh*t, so let’s start a news channel to make up news to confirm it” profoundly disturbing.
Exactly right. They also claim that the broadcast media have lost all public trust but that is not borne out by the polling.
What they yearn for is a Fox News channel that can broadcast its "alternative facts" with impunity. Fortunately we have regulations in the UK that prevent that and long may they remain.
I thought the media (broadcast?) did pretty poorly on some recent polling?
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Depends on the State. I read he has been charged with manslaughter so I guess it is possible in Minnesota
Fifty sets of laws over there.. it must be hell for lawyers
State bars mean you only need to know 1
So you have to do separate law exams for each state?
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Any bookies got a market up for the by-election yet?
Disappointing virus positive test numbers in my patch. Definite uptick. Maybe a one day glitch. Let's hope so.
Could be lumpy data for small patches.
I'm monitoring R for England, London and Richmond using 7 day moving averages of reported cases and ignoring the latest five days as the numbers are incomplete. So this is a snapshot five days ago.
England 0.79 (-0.02) on previous day London 0.64 (-0.03) Richmond 0.64 (-).
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
Whoever this woman is, if she gave half a fuck about the people she's purporting to support here, she wouldn't re-emphasise the viewpoint that is apparently giving them the 'awful feeling' in the first place with her passive aggressive swipe. What a ghoul. If she's a medic I wouldn't let her near anyone I cared about.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
Disappointing virus positive test numbers in my patch. Definite uptick. Maybe a one day glitch. Let's hope so.
Could be lumpy data for small patches.
I'm monitoring R for England, London and Richmond using 7 day moving averages of reported cases and ignoring the latest five days as the numbers are incomplete. So this is a snapshot five days ago.
England 0.79 (-0.02) on previous day London 0.64 (-0.03) Richmond 0.64 (-).
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Difference is “arrest for the murder of” is clearly part of the court process.
“Was murdered” is a statement of fact about the situation
So you should not say somebody was murdered until there's a court verdict confirming it?
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
The govt was doing OK and with general support until Boris apparently decided that Cumming's job was more important than the health of millions of people. That is when the media turned on him...
If he had fired Cummings on the spot, the media would be on Boris's side. This is entirely self-inflicted.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
A simple and sincere (sounding) apology would have sufficed.
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Difference is “arrest for the murder of” is clearly part of the court process.
“Was murdered” is a statement of fact about the situation
So you should not say somebody was murdered until there's a court verdict confirming it?
Didn't the autopsy come back with it being far than certain that he was. Underlying serious health condition and intoxication being the leading causes of death.
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
Thankfully, last night’s launch (first human launch from the States in nine years) is the start of a much larger programme, which should see men back on the moon in the next few years.
I agree with you entirely, that it’s sad to see such regressions in technology over time. Nothing has yet replaced Concorde either.
I find it so hard to explain, I know people say money all the time, but the prestige for a country just to go back to the moon now would be extraordinary even though we first did it in 1969. Why hasn't China done it? America using 1960s technology took just 8 years from its first spaceflight to landing on the moon.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
The govt was doing OK and with general support until Boris apparently decided that Cumming's job was more important than the health of millions of people. That is when the media turned on him...
If he had fired Cummings on the spot, the media would be on Boris's side. This is entirely self-inflicted.
Thats nomsense. The Govt did not decide what you suggest.. typical lr5ft wing remoaner spin
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
You do not need to look far to find she is another Guardian journalist
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Just not sure he can be described as her partner when his wife and three children allege they knew nothing about the relationship, and are shattered
On number 2, there was a very specific exemption for parents picking up students, because Halls of Residence had been closed and they had to get away somehow with their possessions - which realistically in most cases can only be done by car.
Yes, there is an argument that it might have been better to keep them where they were, but that might not have been financially possible.
So he's not a hypocrite, and he hasn't broken any rules.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
I broadly agree about the media, but that does not excuse the government pandering to the demands of the media, the government ought to lead and do the right thing no matter what.
It seems quite clear that the government is pressing ahead with "opening up in June" in order to get some good headlines, despite apparently widespread disagreement from their own scientific advisers.
Is that a long-winded way of calling the media "pot stirrers"?
Yeah, that's a fair summary of part of it. Journalists like to feel they're exposing something outrageous, rather than routinely reporting something harmless, so there's a bias to "exposes". But, conversely, as others have said there's also a bias to currtent perceived establishment wisdom. People regarded with distaste or distrust by moderate opinion tend to be marginalised. I can see an argument for that (should we give the Flat Earth Society equal time? The Ku Klux Klan? ISIS?), but it makes life harder for radicals who might actually be right (Wilberforce?).
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
We will soon find out.
And America currently testing this theory on an even bigger scale.
I thought this virus was meant to be harmless to people under 60 years old.
That's only what those who haven't seen anyone with it say...
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.
I suspect Johnson's problems are partly mental as he knows that right now things are only going to get worse. Much worse.
The Sunday Times report shows how the economy is in an awful state.
It looks like the economic rebound is far below what the government expected, though why anybody would expect a rebound with the current rules and guidelines in place is beyond me. The disincentives are pretty big.
There must be panic at the treasury as the bills soar into the stratosphere and people show few signs of going back to work.
The horrible dilemma that Sunak and Johnson have got themselves in is that if they do what is takes to get Britain going by loosening lockdown more and earlier, the scientists will scream louder than they already are. Scientists they claimed they were following.
PLus, furlough means that the voters are on the scientists' side and not theirs. Why would anybody want furlough to end?
Well if you don’t qualify for any help, like me, and your earnings are down about 70%, the reasons are pretty obvious.
Plus anyone with a brain in their head is going to worry about whether there is going to be a job to go back to, a message that is going to be reinforced by almost daily large scale redundancies from here on.
As usual, it is only the public sector that is divorced from reality.
How many people are on furlough now? 8.4m? I wonder how many of those are long term - it doesn't feel to be a wild guess to suggest that 3m or so will lose their jobs as furlough winds down. They may be lucky in being able to pick up jobs from working age parents where 2 days a week schooling from September makes it impossible for them to work full time.
Either way this is an economic and social shitshow. We appear to be on track for the worst of both worlds - an infection rate that is high enough to stop us trying to go back to normal, that prohibits Brits almost uniquely from being allowed to have beach holidays abroad this year. And an economic collapse caused by not being able to get people back to work safely.
Those international comparisons the government was so keen on when it made them look good and then dropped like a brick when it made them look bad? Just think of the cut through they will have when France and Denmark and pretty much everywhere else have largely beaten this thing and are in recovery, whilst we continue to have an underlying high infection rate and flareups caused by "go have a BBQ" pronouncements.
I agree with much of that.
But...
Do you have any evidence for these ‘flare ups’?
I only ask because week after week on here we’ve been assured that people’s reluctance to lock themselves inside their flats when it’s sunny outside will result in spikes.
But, it hasn’t.
I am genuinely curious where that single data point spike in the London data that was doing the rounds came from and where it went. Anyone?
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Just not sure he can be described as her partner when his wife and three children allege they knew nothing about the relationship, and are shattered
One amusing thing about this story is the way Justin instantly described her as beyond the pale for being an adulterer.
Strangely, this objection never seemed to apply to Corbyn...
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Fuck the government (of any shade). They are not owed the unquestioning supplicancy of the media or anyone else no matter what the circumstances.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
The govt was doing OK and with general support until Boris apparently decided that Cumming's job was more important than the health of millions of people. That is when the media turned on him...
If he had fired Cummings on the spot, the media would be on Boris's side. This is entirely self-inflicted.
Which is more important: giving maximum coverage to Cummings' personal stupidity or reinforcing the consensus on tackling the virus?
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision. Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have. I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.
I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.
Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
No, the moral dimension to the Duffield case make it a straight red like Ferguson.All authorities have given Cummings a clean bill of health. Likewise Jenrick.
No. Durham police have not given him a clean bill of health. They said that a prosecution would be disproportionate. Their statement made it very clear they felt, whatever the technicalities of the law, he had driven a coach and four (well, Range Rover) through government guidance and that his trip to Barnard Castle was a breach of the regulations.
Duffield may of course face prosecution, but I think it unlikely because, as with Cummings, the immediate sanction would have been to tell her to go home.
What car does Cummings drive? Some on pb have said Range Rover, others Land Rover Discovery; the clip outside his gaff did not look like either imo.
Discovery Sport. Absolute piece of shit.
I've watched a couple of reviews on Youtube and the 2020 version seems better.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Fuck the government (of any shade). They are not owed the unquestioning supplicancy of the media or anyone else no matter what the circumstances.
I am truly staggered that anyone can think this crisis is the media's fault for reporting it rather than Cummings' fault for doing it.
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
Thankfully, last night’s launch (first human launch from the States in nine years) is the start of a much larger programme, which should see men back on the moon in the next few years.
I agree with you entirely, that it’s sad to see such regressions in technology over time. Nothing has yet replaced Concorde either.
I find it so hard to explain, I know people say money all the time, but the prestige for a country just to go back to the moon now would be extraordinary even though we first did it in 1969. Why hasn't China done it? America using 1960s technology took just 8 years from its first spaceflight to landing on the moon.
What's the point? it costs a vast fortune to visit the moon and when you get there, there's nothing but a load of rocks. They are probably working on sending a manned mission to the other planets in our solar system but it'll be a long time before that happens. We need to sort out problems on Earth first.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
It doesn't spread off of surfaces ultra-easily. My anecdotal evidence for this is that we used the same metal wheelbarrow the day after a sufferer. I was completely fastidious about not touching my face/washing hands but my fianceé definitely did, though didn't fall ill. The time between those interactions would be about 24 hours.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
The govt was doing OK and with general support until Boris apparently decided that Cumming's job was more important than the health of millions of people. That is when the media turned on him...
If he had fired Cummings on the spot, the media would be on Boris's side. This is entirely self-inflicted.
Oh dear - that's a rather interesting (and telling) rewriting of the actual position
And no, I am no defending Cummings who acted like an utter dick
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Fuck the government (of any shade). They are not owed the unquestioning supplicancy of the media or anyone else no matter what the circumstances.
Well said - that's why the media was given absolute freedom to report whatever they liked in WW2. If thousands more soldiers, sailors, and airmen lost their lives as a result, well, I'm sure they'd have understood that letting the media weigh in with their sniping and slanted guff was of infinitely greater value than their lives...
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
I think there is perhaps a timing issue with political stories like this, which you’re not taking into account. Don’t forget the Guardian originally sat on the Cummings story for quite some time.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
The govt was doing OK and with general support until Boris apparently decided that Cumming's job was more important than the health of millions of people. That is when the media turned on him...
If he had fired Cummings on the spot, the media would be on Boris's side. This is entirely self-inflicted.
Which is more important: giving maximum coverage to Cummings' personal stupidity or reinforcing the consensus on tackling the virus?
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
Yes, that’s my instinctive feeling too Max.
The demographics of London should help us massively, plus the fact that people have been taking a fairly relaxed interpretation of the lockdown guidance.
Certainly, the widespread breaking of the rules down here in the April warm spell has not led to a spike, despite every assurance on here that it would.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Fuck the government (of any shade). They are not owed the unquestioning supplicancy of the media or anyone else no matter what the circumstances.
Well said - that's why the media was given absolute freedom to report whatever they liked in WW2. If thousands more soldiers, sailors, and airmen lost their lives as a result, well, I'm sure they'd have understood that letting the media weigh in with their sniping and slanted guff was of infinitely greater value than their lives...
Are you suggesting the virus is reading the press and adapting its approach accordingly?
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
The government did not have to fight the media, had its communications been more open and honest. No government in a democracy is entitled to a media which does not challenge it.
Comments
The obsession, as you put it, with Dominic Cummings relates to the government’s moral authority to lead. It has lost this, which the general public see only too clearly. From this point on, Prime Ministerial instructions are going to be treated as impositions not moral guidance. This is a serious loss in a collective struggle.
What they yearn for is a Fox News channel that can broadcast its "alternative facts" with impunity. Fortunately we have regulations in the UK that prevent that and long may they remain.
https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1267024147806392320
this will not end well
The journalist claims the doctored claim wasn't used in her story.
There is some irony in the Mail using the headline "You couldn't make it up". They just did.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1266867018122346496
But otherwise I agree. With the possible exception of the Treasury, government response to the crisis has been appallingly flatfooted and dilatory. There seems now to be no coherent strategy.
I’m not sure there’s a good way out of the mess.
Silver lining. More disease out there will help the vaccine testing.
He was lazy, waffled and paid little attention to detail before he became ill.
It’s on editorial bias on this site. (Which is important because we know that many influential people lurk).
I’m incredibly bored by the story - it was partially true, blown up by partisan actors, mischief makers, journalists and others with an agenda. But the witch hunt was unedifying and unhelpful in dealing with what is a very difficult and challenging series of decisions for the government.
I remain of the view that the media as a whole has had a very bad crisis
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
It’s not “tainted” but it’s groupthink. That’s not healthy for a government or a national broadcaster
But for the BBC* to refer to the “murder of George Floyd” presupposes it IS murder and therefore the policeman IS guilty.
Use of words really matters.
* in fairness it was a guest (I think from the Sunday telegraph)
Edit: @AlastairMeeks makes the point I was trying to make rather better than me at 10:27
I agree with you entirely, that it’s sad to see such regressions in technology over time. Nothing has yet replaced Concorde either.
I think the public treat breaking quarantine far more seriously than breaking lockdown and rightly so.
But...
Do you have any evidence for these ‘flare ups’?
I only ask because week after week on here we’ve been assured that people’s reluctance to lock themselves inside their flats when it’s sunny outside will result in spikes.
But, it hasn’t.
“Was murdered” is a statement of fact about the situation
Heck, lots of people voted for a Labour Party led by a anti-Semite just last year
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-watts-riots-explainer-20150715-htmlstory.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Chicago_riots
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
I'm monitoring R for England, London and Richmond using 7 day moving averages of reported cases and ignoring the latest five days as the numbers are incomplete. So this is a snapshot five days ago.
England 0.79 (-0.02) on previous day
London 0.64 (-0.03)
Richmond 0.64 (-).
The smaller the patch, the lumpier the data.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
Any updates from the medical PBers?
If he had fired Cummings on the spot, the media would be on Boris's side. This is entirely self-inflicted.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
On number 2, there was a very specific exemption for parents picking up students, because Halls of Residence had been closed and they had to get away somehow with their possessions - which realistically in most cases can only be done by car.
Yes, there is an argument that it might have been better to keep them where they were, but that might not have been financially possible.
So he's not a hypocrite, and he hasn't broken any rules.
It seems quite clear that the government is pressing ahead with "opening up in June" in order to get some good headlines, despite apparently widespread disagreement from their own scientific advisers.
Cummings screwed up and broke his own rules. Boris failed to fire him. Thus this crisis.
That is it.
And America currently testing this theory on an even bigger scale.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
Strangely, this objection never seemed to apply to Corbyn...
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
They are probably working on sending a manned mission to the other planets in our solar system but it'll be a long time before that happens.
We need to sort out problems on Earth first.
And no, I am no defending Cummings who acted like an utter dick
Don’t forget the Guardian originally sat on the Cummings story for quite some time.
The demographics of London should help us massively, plus the fact that people have been taking a fairly relaxed interpretation of the lockdown guidance.
Certainly, the widespread breaking of the rules down here in the April warm spell has not led to a spike, despite every assurance on here that it would.
It’s been the dog that did not bark.
No government in a democracy is entitled to a media which does not challenge it.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1266984530235265028