Sharma testing negative, certainly a few politicians including Lisa Nandy jumping to conclusions yesterday and now looking a bit silly. While it doesn't vindicate Mogg's plan for voting in person as such, this will be welcome news to him.
If the government is serious about dropping food standards, it’s even barmier than I thought
Surely labelling is the key here. If your food is labelled, you can make your own choice.
The FTA on current US demand will prohibit any requirement for labelling that identifies US origin.
But would it preclude voluntary labelling of food by other producers as being animal-humane, or hormone/chorline-free?
Nope. You would be able to voluntarily label your food as you liked.
However, this kind of labelling is also very weakly policed, outside the "official" organic labelling which does have certain requirements attached to it. If a US poultry producer wanted to create a "Humanely Farmed" label that looked very like existing labels, then - because "humanely farmed" does not have a specific legal definition - they could probably get away with it.
Personally, I have no issue with US food produce coming to the UK. What I have a serious issue with is mandatory labelling being considered a non tariff barrier that is prohibited under the terms of the treaty.
I think you and I agree on the issues. It is not as though the US is free of mandatory labelling itself (e.g. cigarette packaging)
There's also some hypocrisy (believe it or not!): the US mandates that car window stickers contain the proportion of the car made in America; but in the negotiations with Australia (when Australia had a car industry) they wanted to get rid of that requirement.
For the record, I have no doubt that we, the Europeans and the Chinese are all at least as bad.
Also, why is everyone referring only to peaceful protests, when most of them in the US have clearly been anything but peaceful?
Are you sure? My impression is that most are indeed peaceful (unless one counts shouting as violence), but of course the media highlight the ones that aren't.
I will say that the only demo that has really stuck in my mind in a good way was the utterly silent Tamil protest about Srti Lanka outside Parliament - thousands of dignified people quietly carrying banners. I remember a Tory MP and I both agreeing that it had made us look at the issue more closely than we had done.
It is clear that there have been two very distinct sets of protests in the US. In the day time there have been huge, generally well behaved, well organised protests with mass support which have been commended by the police and the authorities. As those protests have eded and we have moved into the evening, they have been replaced by far more violent protests, often accompanied by looting and arson which are not supported by either the BLM movement or the vast majority of the protestors.
One of the problems is it appears to me that Trump and others like him seem to be trying to conflate the two separate reactions into one so as to discredit the whole movement.
Have BLM and the peaceful protestors condemned the looting and violence? I would be interested in your links to that.
You're probably right. it's a variant on "It's rarely the crime, it's always the coverup".
And what made Dom-in-Durham-gate a problem wasn't so much the trip up the A1, it was the contortions to justify the trip to Castle Barnard.
Because Boris really is also remarkably thin-skinned...
Strangely, what bothered me most about Cummings was his notion he wasn't safe in his own home because of social media having shown where he lived and the "ugly atmosphere" resulting from what he regarded as an inaccurate perception of his views on herd immunity.
For a man who had utilised social media so assiduously as a campaigning tool, he seemed oddly lacking in awareness of its negative connotations.
As I've always said "it doesn't matter who writes history, what matters is who re-writes it". If we are seeing an attempt to re-invent the past to show Cummings as having been a visionary in predicting the virus and a master strategist in favour of lockdown, that to me is much more disturbing than any trip to Barnard Castle.
Yes. Dom C is someone else who doesn't give the impression of being entirely comfortable in his own skin.
One of the things I try to get across to pupils is the idea that it's OK for individual bits of science not to work; it's all contributing to the cathedral of what is and isn't known and to be a big name you have to be both clever and lucky.
For all he likes to namecheck science, Dom doesn't get that. (Partly because he's more of an Oxbridge humanities blagger than he likes to admit.) He has to have been right and everybody has to know it. Editing a blog wasn't healthy.
That insecure need to be right doesn't bode well. Thatch and Blair left office with the inner certainty that they were right, even if the fools around them didn't any more. It caused problems for their parties, but not for them personally.
Characters like Major, Brown and May seem to be a peace with their rejection.
Boris'n'Dom (because they're clearly stapled to each other now)... I'm not sure they will cope with failure well. And all political careers end in failure.
Since his election as leader I have revised my opinion of sks upwards, and now back down again. This is being "forensic" in the sense that it feels as if he thinks these letters will be devastatingly effective when they form p.78 of documents bundle XVIIa in a High Court trial five years hence. They are his equivalent of calls for judge led inquiries into everything.
The thing Starmer has in his favour is that he acts more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister does.
He acts exactly as he is. Another lawyer
Hence lots of pointless letter writing
I like that we are getting these kinds of attacks on Starmer. He's clearly got the Tories rattled. They have had it easy for far too long.
I am not rattled by Starmer and he has a long way to go to prove his worth
Lots of letter writing is a lawyers way
If the future holds songs of 'let's hear it for Sir Kier Starmer' I'd be more than amazed.
His main good point is that he's not Corbyn.
The only thing that really matters at the moment is how he compares to Johnson and so far he's doing pretty good on that score
The case figures are being inflated somewhat by a large expansion in mailed tests - 96k today, on top of 40k odd via drivethrough.
In UK pillar 1 the % keeps falling though:
I'm not convinced. We're doing a lot of tests (though there seems some doubt about the actual numbers) and a smaller percentage are returning positive.
If you test 100 people and 40 are positive and you then test 300 people and 50 are positive that can be drawn on yet another graph as a "success".
We still don't know how many have or have had the virus or how many are asymptomatic. Even the number who have died is up for debate - is it 40,000, 60,000 or some other number?
Are we really getting into some of the worst-hit areas? I live in Newham, the area with the third highest death rate in the country. Officially 294 have died but the true figure is probably nearer 600. Yet there are only just over 1,000 cases so what's going on?
The NHS coronavirus test-and-trace system designed to prevent a second deadly wave is not expected to work at full speed until September or October, the Guardian has learned.
Tony Prestedge, the chief operating officer of the NHS scheme, admitted in a webinar to staff that the programme would be “imperfect” at launch, adding that he hoped it would be operational at a world-class level within three to four months.
It comes as a leaked email from the chief executive of Serco – one of the main companies contracted to deliver the service – revealed how he doubted the scheme would evolve smoothly but said he wanted it to “cement the position of the private sector” in the NHS supply chain.
I wonder if it'll be running at 1%, 10% or 90% of full speed before then? Things don't have to be running at top speed to be effective (although I'm not claiming it is currently effective).
Yes it's not all or nothing. Good point.
I just wish Johnson hadn't felt the need to promise something "world beating".
It's so juvenile. Just a step up from "gonna have a big beautiful track and trace system, best ever, gonna be just so so good, gonna trace and track and test so many people you won't believe it".
It is, but I don’t really care about that nonsense.
What really annoys me is that they could have set all this up months ago, in parallel, or even in advance of the testing ramp up - and it is one of the essential components of being able to reopen the economy.
Plain incompetence.
I think it's linked. Brittle boasting and data manipulation in loco diligence and delivery of the basics.
And imo all this mobile app stuff is a bit of a red herring. An effective system does not require that.
Since his election as leader I have revised my opinion of sks upwards, and now back down again. This is being "forensic" in the sense that it feels as if he thinks these letters will be devastatingly effective when they form p.78 of documents bundle XVIIa in a High Court trial five years hence. They are his equivalent of calls for judge led inquiries into everything.
The thing Starmer has in his favour is that he acts more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister does.
He acts exactly as he is. Another lawyer
Hence lots of pointless letter writing
I like that we are getting these kinds of attacks on Starmer. He's clearly got the Tories rattled. They have had it easy for far too long.
I am not rattled by Starmer and he has a long way to go to prove his worth
Lots of letter writing is a lawyers way
Letters create evidence. You may not be rattled by Starmer, but Johnson clearly is, as are a number of posters on here. I can understand why. He is far smarter than the PM, more on top of his brief and not afraid of a bit of hard work. Since he has become leader, the polls have closed and his personal numbers have become steadily more positive, as have those for the Labour party. It's two months today that he became Labour leader. It's not a bad start.
I'm in the David Herdson camp over Starmer. Not as impressive as Ed Miliband.
We'll have to agree to disagree. For me Starmer is a better performer in the Commons, is a lot smarter, is much more in control of his party and looks a lot more impressive than the PM he is facing. He also owes absolutely nothing to Len McCluskey and did not stab his brother in the back.
And Starmer doesn't look geeky like EdM and Boris is scared shitless of him.
He looks brylcreemy. Like the hero on the front cover of a 1960s Mills and Boon doctor & nurse romance.
Whereas Boris' Barnet is straight off the cover of Hair and Beauty magazine?
I know he likes the unkempt hair look, but someone really does need to drag him through a barber shop. It's not a good look when dealing with a serious national crisis.
The messy hair and the "Boris" name are part of the brand. Without them he's just another over-promoted fat posh bloke.
You mean you don't like him!
I don't mind him on panel shows. I've met him, he has obvious charm. But he's completely out of his depth, and without the many privileges of his upbringing he'd be nowhere near Downing Street.
If the government is serious about dropping food standards, it’s even barmier than I thought
Surely labelling is the key here. If your food is labelled, you can make your own choice.
The FTA on current US demand will prohibit any requirement for labelling that identifies US origin.
That's a lie.
I don't appreciate being called a liar.
The US Trade Representative repeatedly highlights labeling as a barrier to trade in this document (mentioned 177 times)
The US is very aggressive in regarding mandatory labelling as a non-tariff barrier. Nowhere else - to be the best of my knowledge - takes such a stance.
For the record, the bigger issue (though) is not labelling country of origin, but more issues like "contains genetically modified produce".
So do you think the US might be happy with labelling that said 'produce of the USA' on their chicken or other animal products, but not anything about animal rearing or processing?
If the government is serious about dropping food standards, it’s even barmier than I thought
Surely labelling is the key here. If your food is labelled, you can make your own choice.
The FTA on current US demand will prohibit any requirement for labelling that identifies US origin.
But would it preclude voluntary labelling of food by other producers as being animal-humane, or hormone/chorline-free?
Nope. You would be able to voluntarily label your food as you liked.
However, this kind of labelling is also very weakly policed, outside the "official" organic labelling which does have certain requirements attached to it. If a US poultry producer wanted to create a "Humanely Farmed" label that looked very like existing labels, then - because "humanely farmed" does not have a specific legal definition - they could probably get away with it.
Personally, I have no issue with US food produce coming to the UK. What I have a serious issue with is mandatory labelling being considered a non tariff barrier that is prohibited under the terms of the treaty.
I think you and I agree on the issues. It is not as though the US is free of mandatory labelling itself (e.g. cigarette packaging)
There's also some hypocrisy (believe it or not!): the US mandates that car window stickers contain the proportion of the car made in America; but in the negotiations with Australia (when Australia had a car industry) they wanted to get rid of that requirement.
For the record, I have no doubt that we, the Europeans and the Chinese are all at least as bad.
And some of it is just plain stupid. How long, precisely, will it take of UK consumers to work out that Perdue or Tyson chicken comes from the US, regardless of it not being on the label?
Yes. Dom C is someone else who doesn't give the impression of being entirely comfortable in his own skin.
One of the things I try to get across to pupils is the idea that it's OK for individual bits of science not to work; it's all contributing to the cathedral of what is and isn't known and to be a big name you have to be both clever and lucky.
For all he likes to namecheck science, Dom doesn't get that. (Partly because he's more of an Oxbridge humanities blagger than he likes to admit.) He has to have been right and everybody has to know it. Editing a blog wasn't healthy.
That insecure need to be right doesn't bode well. Thatch and Blair left office with the inner certainty that they were right, even if the fools around them didn't any more. It caused problems for their parties, but not for them personally.
Characters like Major, Brown and May seem to be a peace with their rejection.
Boris'n'Dom (because they're clearly stapled to each other now)... I'm not sure they will cope with failure well. And all political careers end in failure.
I suspect if, in 1,428 days, Johnson doesn't get a favourable verdict from the electorate, he will publicly be extremely gracious. Privately, it may be very different and I'm sure he will have no desire to lead the Conservatives in Opposition and may emulate Major, Hague and Cameron by stepping down immediately after an unsuccessful election.
After 14 years, a period in Opposition won't do the Conservatives any harm either.
If the government is serious about dropping food standards, it’s even barmier than I thought
Surely labelling is the key here. If your food is labelled, you can make your own choice.
The FTA on current US demand will prohibit any requirement for labelling that identifies US origin.
That's a lie.
I don't appreciate being called a liar.
The US Trade Representative repeatedly highlights labeling as a barrier to trade in this document (mentioned 177 times)
The US is very aggressive in regarding mandatory labelling as a non-tariff barrier. Nowhere else - to be the best of my knowledge - takes such a stance.
For the record, the bigger issue (though) is not labelling country of origin, but more issues like "contains genetically modified produce".
So do you think the US might be happy with labelling that said 'produce of the USA' on their chicken or other animal products, but not anything about animal rearing or processing?
It's a good question. I suspect that they would be OK with it, so long as there wasn't a requirement to make labelling excessively large. (Yes, arguments really do get that detailed.)
In 204 weeks or 1,428 days it will be General Election day.
It has been 25 weeks or 175 days since the last General Election.
An enormous amount has happened and we are barely 11% of the way into this Parliament. Anyone who can state with any sense of conviction how the next GE is going to turn out is clearly mad, sad or bad (delete as appropriate).
Worrying about infinitesimally small moves in opinion polls is presumably all some have to look forward in the next 1,428 days.
That assumes that 2nd May 2024 is the next GE Polling Day as currently stipulated by the FTPA. More striking for me is that - on the same basis - we are very close - ie 3 days - from being able to say that we are as close to the next GE as to Theresa May becoming PM. That still seems recent!
If the government is serious about dropping food standards, it’s even barmier than I thought
Surely labelling is the key here. If your food is labelled, you can make your own choice.
The FTA on current US demand will prohibit any requirement for labelling that identifies US origin.
That's a lie.
I don't appreciate being called a liar.
The US Trade Representative repeatedly highlights labeling as a barrier to trade in this document (mentioned 177 times)
I'm sorry I said lie, I should have said you're wrong. Completely wrong.
Please quote anything in that document that prohibits any requirement for labelling that identifies US origin.
Please also specify how that reconciles with Title X of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (also known as the 2002 Farm Bill), codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1638a
Since his election as leader I have revised my opinion of sks upwards, and now back down again. This is being "forensic" in the sense that it feels as if he thinks these letters will be devastatingly effective when they form p.78 of documents bundle XVIIa in a High Court trial five years hence. They are his equivalent of calls for judge led inquiries into everything.
The thing Starmer has in his favour is that he acts more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister does.
He acts exactly as he is. Another lawyer
Hence lots of pointless letter writing
I like that we are getting these kinds of attacks on Starmer. He's clearly got the Tories rattled. They have had it easy for far too long.
I am not rattled by Starmer and he has a long way to go to prove his worth
Lots of letter writing is a lawyers way
Letters create evidence. You may not be rattled by Starmer, but Johnson clearly is, as are a number of posters on here. I can understand why. He is far smarter than the PM, more on top of his brief and not afraid of a bit of hard work. Since he has become leader, the polls have closed and his personal numbers have become steadily more positive, as have those for the Labour party. It's two months today that he became Labour leader. It's not a bad start.
I'm in the David Herdson camp over Starmer. Not as impressive as Ed Miliband.
The problem for Starmer is that in court, witnesses are compelled to answer the questions and to take an oath to tell the truth. Boris is not compelled to answer his letters or indeed address any of his points at PMQs.
I expect that Boris will reply along the lines of "Dear Keir, I agree these protests are awful. It is important that we maintain a strong alliance with the US and I will say let's all be nicer when I talk to Trump. Blah blah blah"
The case figures are being inflated somewhat by a large expansion in mailed tests - 96k today, on top of 40k odd via drivethrough.
In UK pillar 1 the % keeps falling though:
I'm not convinced. We're doing a lot of tests (though there seems some doubt about the actual numbers) and a smaller percentage are returning positive.
If you test 100 people and 40 are positive and you then test 300 people and 50 are positive that can be drawn on yet another graph as a "success".
We still don't know how many have or have had the virus or how many are asymptomatic. Even the number who have died is up for debate - is it 40,000, 60,000 or some other number?
Are we really getting into some of the worst-hit areas? I live in Newham, the area with the third highest death rate in the country. Officially 294 have died but the true figure is probably nearer 600. Yet there are only just over 1,000 cases so what's going on?
The important point is not to tie yourself in knots about daily numbers. Theses are all over the place, for various reasons. 7 day averages are your friend.
The ONS excess death numbers put an upper limit on what is happening.
Most people who think they have had it - haven't Most people who think they have it - don't
That is true for every country that has been hit by this.
I am going to yield to my contrarian nature tonight by - for the first time - clapping at 8pm for NHS and carers. Interesting to see if anybody joins me.
Yes. Dom C is someone else who doesn't give the impression of being entirely comfortable in his own skin.
One of the things I try to get across to pupils is the idea that it's OK for individual bits of science not to work; it's all contributing to the cathedral of what is and isn't known and to be a big name you have to be both clever and lucky.
For all he likes to namecheck science, Dom doesn't get that. (Partly because he's more of an Oxbridge humanities blagger than he likes to admit.) He has to have been right and everybody has to know it. Editing a blog wasn't healthy.
That insecure need to be right doesn't bode well. Thatch and Blair left office with the inner certainty that they were right, even if the fools around them didn't any more. It caused problems for their parties, but not for them personally.
Characters like Major, Brown and May seem to be a peace with their rejection.
Boris'n'Dom (because they're clearly stapled to each other now)... I'm not sure they will cope with failure well. And all political careers end in failure.
I suspect if, in 1,428 days, Johnson doesn't get a favourable verdict from the electorate, he will publicly be extremely gracious. Privately, it may be very different and I'm sure he will have no desire to lead the Conservatives in Opposition and may emulate Major, Hague and Cameron by stepping down immediately after an unsuccessful election.
After 14 years, a period in Opposition won't do the Conservatives any harm either.
I'm not so sure. It depends if you think Wednesday's PMQs act was an attempt at a forceful masterful act, or if difficult questions really get under Bozza's skin.
Without access to his private braincare specialist, we can't tell. But I'm not sure he has the psyche to cope with people being mean to him on a regular basis for four years.
The important point is not to tie yourself in knots about daily numbers. Theses are all over the place, for various reasons. 7 day averages are your friend.
The ONS excess death numbers put an upper limit on what is happening.
Most people who think they have had it - haven't Most people who think they have it - don't
That is true for every country that has been hit by this.
With respect, we simply don't know. The number of tests looks impressive but the numbers tested less so.
There's conflicting statements from antibody tests - I think I saw one which concluded 25% of the population of NYC had the virus.
My back-of-a-spreadsheet numbers came up at about 7% maximum so we can forget herd immunity but that doesn't mean a lot of us could be immune or asymptomatic. Again, we don't know.
We do know for people with pre-existing health conditions and especially the elderly it is a very serious illness and the long-term effects on those who are able to recover can be severe.
Since his election as leader I have revised my opinion of sks upwards, and now back down again. This is being "forensic" in the sense that it feels as if he thinks these letters will be devastatingly effective when they form p.78 of documents bundle XVIIa in a High Court trial five years hence. They are his equivalent of calls for judge led inquiries into everything.
The thing Starmer has in his favour is that he acts more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister does.
He acts exactly as he is. Another lawyer
Hence lots of pointless letter writing
I like that we are getting these kinds of attacks on Starmer. He's clearly got the Tories rattled. They have had it easy for far too long.
I am not rattled by Starmer and he has a long way to go to prove his worth
Lots of letter writing is a lawyers way
Letters create evidence. You may not be rattled by Starmer, but Johnson clearly is, as are a number of posters on here. I can understand why. He is far smarter than the PM, more on top of his brief and not afraid of a bit of hard work. Since he has become leader, the polls have closed and his personal numbers have become steadily more positive, as have those for the Labour party. It's two months today that he became Labour leader. It's not a bad start.
Lawyers are focused on looking backwards. Very little evidence of Starmer looking forwards
The type of lawyer Starmer has been is completely focused on the future. Their job is to build a case to secure a verdict. They are deliberately moving towards an outcome in the future.
That is utter tosh. Building a case is backward looking not "will this man be guilty in the future of some offence". He was DPP FFS.
Yes - and as DPP his job was specifically to assess whether the evidence in a case was suffiucient so that there was a reasonable chance it could lead to a conviction at a trial set for a date in the future.
So every "not guilty" result was a failure that he didn't get sacked for
And will get reported on page 57 of most newspapers.
"Man hasn't got Coronavirus" would hardly make for the most riveting headlines.
But "Man could have Coronavirus" does? Perhaps they could just wait and find out.
Shocking that they'd speculate after minister dissolves in the middle of HoC, says he's self isolating & going to be tested for Covid-19, what were the fools thinking?
Interesting take on what's hitting Trump from the right - his thin skin
One Alt-right commentator I read is disappointed that when so much is going on in the US, Corona, the economy, riots, Trump is still getting embroiled in personal spats and squabbles.
It looks petty, mean and, most of all, it doesn't project stability.
Trump is a bully. He is a personally weak and vain character but regards every slight and affront as a personal challenge to his authority. General Maitlis is no threat but instead of ignoring the comments, Trump has to respond. He has made many enemies and as you say it shows questionable tactics trying to take them all on as if it were a "whack-a-mole" game.
Unlike under the British system where a politician has to learn how to argue and persuade, the American President can run the country like a business if he has a tame set of shareholders (Senators). Some business people are used to having their every utterance treated as wisdom and are used to their every command being obeyed. That's why so many fail in politics - they don't know how to persuade without the implied threat of coercion.
I think that's about right. I cannot think of a political leader so petty and thin skinned as Trump, and it's seemingly tied to his vanity and an inability, even for a politician, to refuse to accept he has ever been less than perfect.
BBC Outside Source spoke with Dr Emma Hodcroft, molecular epidemiologist at the University of Basel in Switzerland about how to keep safe while attending demonstrations. Here's her advice:
Always wear a mask when in a large group, even outside. Change it every four hours and safely dispose of the old one. Remember not to touch your mask while wearing it. Stay two metres away from anyone not in your household. Organisers should (as much as possible) provide masks, hand sanitiser, and help arrange people so they can stand/march in a formation that allows plenty of room around each person. Shouting, singing and chanting are likely to produce droplets which can contribute to transmission. Some great alternatives are drums, rattles and other noise-making devices. If you do chant or sing, definitely do not do so without a mask on. Don’t share signs or banners, and don’t touch things that aren’t yours. Bring your own sign, water etc. to avoid having to share with others. Speakers need to be cautious of transmission risks. Microphones and megaphones should be wiped down well with sanitiser between speakers. Extra room should be made between speakers and the crowd – loud speaking produces droplets. If you have any symptoms at all, do not go to a protest.
Since his election as leader I have revised my opinion of sks upwards, and now back down again. This is being "forensic" in the sense that it feels as if he thinks these letters will be devastatingly effective when they form p.78 of documents bundle XVIIa in a High Court trial five years hence. They are his equivalent of calls for judge led inquiries into everything.
The thing Starmer has in his favour is that he acts more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister does.
He acts exactly as he is. Another lawyer
Hence lots of pointless letter writing
I like that we are getting these kinds of attacks on Starmer. He's clearly got the Tories rattled. They have had it easy for far too long.
I am not rattled by Starmer and he has a long way to go to prove his worth
Lots of letter writing is a lawyers way
Letters create evidence. You may not be rattled by Starmer, but Johnson clearly is, as are a number of posters on here. I can understand why. He is far smarter than the PM, more on top of his brief and not afraid of a bit of hard work. Since he has become leader, the polls have closed and his personal numbers have become steadily more positive, as have those for the Labour party. It's two months today that he became Labour leader. It's not a bad start.
Lawyers are focused on looking backwards. Very little evidence of Starmer looking forwards
The type of lawyer Starmer has been is completely focused on the future. Their job is to build a case to secure a verdict. They are deliberately moving towards an outcome in the future.
That is utter tosh. Building a case is backward looking not "will this man be guilty in the future of some offence". He was DPP FFS.
Yes - and as DPP his job was specifically to assess whether the evidence in a case was suffiucient so that there was a reasonable chance it could lead to a conviction at a trial set for a date in the future.
So every "not guilty" result was a failure that he didn't get sacked for
As soon as he got the cameras in to advertise his decisions, one knew he was preparing for what he is doing now. it was fairly obvious to me that he had his mind set on Parliament.
Powerful stuff. It just seems so obvious that the US police are so badly, awfully trained. They don't even manage to keep themselves safe because they fly into situations without knowing what's going on. And they're a liability to the public.
Since his election as leader I have revised my opinion of sks upwards, and now back down again. This is being "forensic" in the sense that it feels as if he thinks these letters will be devastatingly effective when they form p.78 of documents bundle XVIIa in a High Court trial five years hence. They are his equivalent of calls for judge led inquiries into everything.
The thing Starmer has in his favour is that he acts more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister does.
He acts exactly as he is. Another lawyer
Hence lots of pointless letter writing
I like that we are getting these kinds of attacks on Starmer. He's clearly got the Tories rattled. They have had it easy for far too long.
I am not rattled by Starmer and he has a long way to go to prove his worth
Lots of letter writing is a lawyers way
Letters create evidence. You may not be rattled by Starmer, but Johnson clearly is, as are a number of posters on here. I can understand why. He is far smarter than the PM, more on top of his brief and not afraid of a bit of hard work. Since he has become leader, the polls have closed and his personal numbers have become steadily more positive, as have those for the Labour party. It's two months today that he became Labour leader. It's not a bad start.
I'm in the David Herdson camp over Starmer. Not as impressive as Ed Miliband.
We'll have to agree to disagree. For me Starmer is a better performer in the Commons, is a lot smarter, is much more in control of his party and looks a lot more impressive than the PM he is facing. He also owes absolutely nothing to Len McCluskey and did not stab his brother in the back.
And Starmer doesn't look geeky like EdM and Boris is scared shitless of him.
Cameron knew how to handle Miliband. Johnson has not got a clue how to handle Starmer. Johnson's basic problem is that Starmer will always be better briefed and prepared at PMQs because he is not a lazy sod who prefers to wing it.
Boris has surprised many people over the years to come out on top, I wouldn't rule out the possibility he can figure out a way to handle Starmer, but it certainly will be a tougher prospect than he would like and he hasn't yet come up with how to do so. But Starmer has hardly faced Boris in a usual period either, and to the extent we will have anything normal to face ever again, Boris should not be underestimated. I've done that and been proven wrong before. My worry is some Starmer fans are already getting complacent in thinking, this early on in unprecedented times, that he has totally got Boris's number and Boris will have nothing to throw at him over the next 4 years.
And will get reported on page 57 of most newspapers.
"Man hasn't got Coronavirus" would hardly make for the most riveting headlines.
But "Man could have Coronavirus" does? Perhaps they could just wait and find out.
Shocking that they'd speculate after minister dissolves in the middle of HoC, says he's self isolating & going to be tested for Covid-19, what were the fools thinking?
Speculation makes sense, leaping to using it for political leverage may have been premature.
Since his election as leader I have revised my opinion of sks upwards, and now back down again. This is being "forensic" in the sense that it feels as if he thinks these letters will be devastatingly effective when they form p.78 of documents bundle XVIIa in a High Court trial five years hence. They are his equivalent of calls for judge led inquiries into everything.
The thing Starmer has in his favour is that he acts more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister does.
He acts exactly as he is. Another lawyer
Hence lots of pointless letter writing
I like that we are getting these kinds of attacks on Starmer. He's clearly got the Tories rattled. They have had it easy for far too long.
I am not rattled by Starmer and he has a long way to go to prove his worth
Lots of letter writing is a lawyers way
If the future holds songs of 'let's hear it for Sir Kier Starmer' I'd be more than amazed.
His main good point is that he's not Corbyn.
The only thing that really matters at the moment is how he compares to Johnson and so far he's doing pretty good on that score
The case figures are being inflated somewhat by a large expansion in mailed tests - 96k today, on top of 40k odd via drivethrough.
In UK pillar 1 the % keeps falling though:
I'm not convinced. We're doing a lot of tests (though there seems some doubt about the actual numbers) and a smaller percentage are returning positive.
If you test 100 people and 40 are positive and you then test 300 people and 50 are positive that can be drawn on yet another graph as a "success".
We still don't know how many have or have had the virus or how many are asymptomatic. Even the number who have died is up for debate - is it 40,000, 60,000 or some other number?
Are we really getting into some of the worst-hit areas? I live in Newham, the area with the third highest death rate in the country. Officially 294 have died but the true figure is probably nearer 600. Yet there are only just over 1,000 cases so what's going on?
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
A combination of a bunch of kids failing to distance while cleaning graffiti, and the other woman who seems to be criticising them for cleaning (or is she criticising them for not distancing?
Or is the story that Old Holborn is still going strong after about 15 years?
Powerful stuff. It just seems so obvious that the US police are so badly, awfully trained. They don't even manage to keep themselves safe because they fly into situations without knowing what's going on. And they're a liability to the public.
The police are heavily armed and aggressive because a small minority of the public are likewise. For every situation that gets out of control there are dozens which are resolved without any violence, except maybe a door kicked in. But until the Second Amendment is reinterpreted and the drug trade brought under control, we'll have many more situations like the current one.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
Isn't that to give people a chance to get one?
In other countries they had this cunning plan...hand them out at the stations.....people get one & it reinforces you need to wear one to go on the train / bus.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
Isn't that to give people a chance to get one?
In other countries they had this cunning plan...hand them out at the stations.....people get one & it reinforces you need to wear one to go on the train / bus.
Yep, that would be smart. Are they not going to do that?
Powerful stuff. It just seems so obvious that the US police are so badly, awfully trained. They don't even manage to keep themselves safe because they fly into situations without knowing what's going on. And they're a liability to the public.
The police are heavily armed and aggressive because a small minority of the public are likewise. For every situation that gets out of control there are dozens which are resolved without any violence, except maybe a door kicked in. But until the Second Amendment is reinterpreted and the drug trade brought under control, we'll have many more situations like the current one.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
Without saying their communication has been brilliant, they've also been criticised for announcing things too closely to them coming into force so that people don't get to absorb the message. So I'm unclear here how much time they are supposed to give between announcement and coming into effect.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
Isn't that to give people a chance to get one?
In other countries they had this cunning plan...hand them out at the stations.....people get one & it reinforces you need to wear one to go on the train / bus.
Yep, that would be smart. Are they not going to do that?
If any sense, they should have already been doing that on the tube, but not seen any pictures that they have.
Interesting take on what's hitting Trump from the right - his thin skin
One Alt-right commentator I read is disappointed that when so much is going on in the US, Corona, the economy, riots, Trump is still getting embroiled in personal spats and squabbles.
It looks petty, mean and, most of all, it doesn't project stability.
Trump is a bully. He is a personally weak and vain character but regards every slight and affront as a personal challenge to his authority. General Maitlis is no threat but instead of ignoring the comments, Trump has to respond. He has made many enemies and as you say it shows questionable tactics trying to take them all on as if it were a "whack-a-mole" game.
Unlike under the British system where a politician has to learn how to argue and persuade, the American President can run the country like a business if he has a tame set of shareholders (Senators). Some business people are used to having their every utterance treated as wisdom and are used to their every command being obeyed. That's why so many fail in politics - they don't know how to persuade without the implied threat of coercion.
I think that's about right. I cannot think of a political leader so petty and thin skinned as Trump, and it's seemingly tied to his vanity and an inability, even for a politician, to refuse to accept he has ever been less than perfect.
"Yet more FAKE NEWS from the LAMESTREAM media! I am the greatest President since Lincoln! Sad!"
Interesting take on what's hitting Trump from the right - his thin skin
One Alt-right commentator I read is disappointed that when so much is going on in the US, Corona, the economy, riots, Trump is still getting embroiled in personal spats and squabbles.
It looks petty, mean and, most of all, it doesn't project stability.
Trump is a bully. He is a personally weak and vain character but regards every slight and affront as a personal challenge to his authority. General Maitlis is no threat but instead of ignoring the comments, Trump has to respond. He has made many enemies and as you say it shows questionable tactics trying to take them all on as if it were a "whack-a-mole" game.
Unlike under the British system where a politician has to learn how to argue and persuade, the American President can run the country like a business if he has a tame set of shareholders (Senators). Some business people are used to having their every utterance treated as wisdom and are used to their every command being obeyed. That's why so many fail in politics - they don't know how to persuade without the implied threat of coercion.
I think that's about right. I cannot think of a political leader so petty and thin skinned as Trump, and it's seemingly tied to his vanity and an inability, even for a politician, to refuse to accept he has ever been less than perfect.
"Yet more FAKE NEWS from the LAMESTREAM media! I am the greatest President since Lincoln! Sad!"
He probably prefers presidents who weren't so lame as to get shot before they finished their term.
Powerful stuff. It just seems so obvious that the US police are so badly, awfully trained. They don't even manage to keep themselves safe because they fly into situations without knowing what's going on. And they're a liability to the public.
The police are heavily armed and aggressive because a small minority of the public are likewise. For every situation that gets out of control there are dozens which are resolved without any violence, except maybe a door kicked in. But until the Second Amendment is reinterpreted and the drug trade brought under control, we'll have many more situations like the current one.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
Without saying their communication has been brilliant, they've also been criticised for announcing things too closely to them coming into force so that people don't get to absorb the message. So I'm unclear here how much time they are supposed to give between announcement and coming into effect.
Announce it Friday for Monday start? And hand out loads of free ones at least that initial week.
Powerful stuff. It just seems so obvious that the US police are so badly, awfully trained. They don't even manage to keep themselves safe because they fly into situations without knowing what's going on. And they're a liability to the public.
The police are heavily armed and aggressive because a small minority of the public are likewise. For every situation that gets out of control there are dozens which are resolved without any violence, except maybe a door kicked in. But until the Second Amendment is reinterpreted and the drug trade brought under control, we'll have many more situations like the current one.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
Without saying their communication has been brilliant, they've also been criticised for announcing things too closely to them coming into force so that people don't get to absorb the message. So I'm unclear here how much time they are supposed to give between announcement and coming into effect.
Announce it Friday for Monday start? And hand out loads of free ones at least that initial week.
One would hope. But the point was how much time post announcement is the right amount is up for debate and has been from the start.
A combination of a bunch of kids failing to distance while cleaning graffiti, and the other woman who seems to be criticising them for cleaning (or is she criticising them for not distancing?
Or is the story that Old Holborn is still going strong after about 15 years?
The real question is whether OH has had more Twitter Accounts than Dr Eoin.
Thursday clapping over as nobody comes out and no clapping heard from anywhere
First time as each week most everybody has been out
I went out clapping tonight for the first time but have to report that no one joined me despite my having resorted to banging a pan. It is what I expected and shows that most people act like sheep on such matters - by following the crowd or wishing to be seen to participate.
It is quite extraordinary that a general so aggressive and uncompromising that even the US Marine Corps nicknamed him ‘Mad Dog’ has appeared almost reasonable compared to Trump.
What's the difference between a Corbyn fanatic and a Starmer fanatic?
About 35 years
Twitter has very little to offer in way of helping the debate but 'Starmtroopers' is a rather amusing descritption of some of his more avid supporters.
I hate to say this, but the messaging of the government has been dreadful. For example, announcing that facemasks will be compulsory on public transport is the right decision in itself, but making it now rather than a long time ago will give the impression to a lot of less news-savvy members of the public (ie. a very high percentage of the population) that things are somehow getting worse right now as far as the virus is concerned. That isn't true, but a lot of the public will say to themselves — "Things must be getting worse, because otherwise why make this announcement now and not 10 weeks ago?"
Also, announce it, but doesn't come into force for 10 days.
Isn't that to give people a chance to get one?
In other countries they had this cunning plan...hand them out at the stations.....people get one & it reinforces you need to wear one to go on the train / bus.
Yep, that would be smart. Are they not going to do that?
Thursday clapping over as nobody comes out and no clapping heard from anywhere
First time as each week most everybody has been out
I went out clapping tonight for the first time but have to report that no one joined me despite my having resorted to banging a pan. It is what I expected and shows that most people act like sheep on such matters - by following the crowd or wishing to be seen to participate.
How is it being a sheep if the whole thing was planned? There is such a thing as organisation, you know?
Thursday clapping over as nobody comes out and no clapping heard from anywhere
First time as each week most everybody has been out
I went out clapping tonight for the first time but have to report that no one joined me despite my having resorted to banging a pan. It is what I expected and shows that most people act like sheep on such matters - by following the crowd or wishing to be seen to participate.
That's why I reserved my expression of support for the NHS to 3am on tuesdays. The dark looks and yelling that came my way show very clearly that people hate individualism. Or maybe they thought 'play death metal at excruciating high volume for the NHS' was not going to catch on.
Interesting take on what's hitting Trump from the right - his thin skin
One Alt-right commentator I read is disappointed that when so much is going on in the US, Corona, the economy, riots, Trump is still getting embroiled in personal spats and squabbles.
It looks petty, mean and, most of all, it doesn't project stability.
Trump is a bully. He is a personally weak and vain character but regards every slight and affront as a personal challenge to his authority. General Maitlis is no threat but instead of ignoring the comments, Trump has to respond. He has made many enemies and as you say it shows questionable tactics trying to take them all on as if it were a "whack-a-mole" game.
Unlike under the British system where a politician has to learn how to argue and persuade, the American President can run the country like a business if he has a tame set of shareholders (Senators). Some business people are used to having their every utterance treated as wisdom and are used to their every command being obeyed. That's why so many fail in politics - they don't know how to persuade without the implied threat of coercion.
I think that's about right. I cannot think of a political leader so petty and thin skinned as Trump, and it's seemingly tied to his vanity and an inability, even for a politician, to refuse to accept he has ever been less than perfect.
"Yet more FAKE NEWS from the LAMESTREAM media! I am the greatest President since Lincoln! Sad!"
He probably prefers presidents who weren't so lame as to get shot before they finished their term.
In fairness, Lincoln did finish a term. He was shot five weeks into his second term.
Thursday clapping over as nobody comes out and no clapping heard from anywhere
First time as each week most everybody has been out
I went out clapping tonight for the first time but have to report that no one joined me despite my having resorted to banging a pan. It is what I expected and shows that most people act like sheep on such matters - by following the crowd or wishing to be seen to participate.
If people were sheep wouldn't someone have come out to join you?
Thursday clapping over as nobody comes out and no clapping heard from anywhere
First time as each week most everybody has been out
I went out clapping tonight for the first time but have to report that no one joined me despite my having resorted to banging a pan. It is what I expected and shows that most people act like sheep on such matters - by following the crowd or wishing to be seen to participate.
Muttonheads. And have you seen how they all slavishly keep to the left of the road just because the other cars are?
Thursday clapping over as nobody comes out and no clapping heard from anywhere
First time as each week most everybody has been out
I went out clapping tonight for the first time but have to report that no one joined me despite my having resorted to banging a pan. It is what I expected and shows that most people act like sheep on such matters - by following the crowd or wishing to be seen to participate.
How is it being a sheep if the whole thing was planned? There is such a thing as organisation, you know?
But if people start clapping when so many others are doing so and then all happen to stop at the sayso of an individual, it rather suggests lack of spontaneity. In reality, there were probably a fair number who wished to carry on clapping but who have stopped simply to be seen to conform with the behaviour of neighbours etc. Personally I never favoured the clapping at all - I did it tonight just to make a point and may do so again next week.
Thursday clapping over as nobody comes out and no clapping heard from anywhere
First time as each week most everybody has been out
I went out clapping tonight for the first time but have to report that no one joined me despite my having resorted to banging a pan. It is what I expected and shows that most people act like sheep on such matters - by following the crowd or wishing to be seen to participate.
How is it being a sheep if the whole thing was planned? There is such a thing as organisation, you know?
But if people start clapping when so many others are doing so and then all happen to stop at the sayso of an individual, it rather suggests lack of spontaneity. In reality, there were probably a fair number who wished to carry on clapping but who have stopped simply to be seen to conform with the behaviour of neighbours etc. Personally I never favoured the clapping at all - I did it tonight just to make a point and may do so again next week.
Thursday clapping over as nobody comes out and no clapping heard from anywhere
First time as each week most everybody has been out
I went out clapping tonight for the first time but have to report that no one joined me despite my having resorted to banging a pan. It is what I expected and shows that most people act like sheep on such matters - by following the crowd or wishing to be seen to participate.
Muttonheads. And have you seen how they all slavishly keep to the left of the road just because the other cars are?
I mean, I know Oxford University is a dump that has no academic rigour or pride and thinks Dom Cummings deserved a first, but it’s still not as bad as the Lancet.
Or they could have written "No Parking" in big font, and "Enforcement In Operation" in smaller font?
Strictly speaking, it should be a colon.
‘No Parking: Enforcement in Operation.’
The actual sign has very little ambiguity. Good luck to the jobsworth in charge of defending it. Is it even a legal sign, they’re supposed to be to the DoT standard?
Or they could have written "No Parking" in big font, and "Enforcement In Operation" in smaller font?
Strictly speaking, it should be a colon.
‘No Parking: Enforcement in Operation.’
The actual sign has very little ambiguity. Good luck to the jobsworth in charge of defending it. Is it even a legal sign, they’re supposed to be to the DoT standard?
Probably, because it was a temporary sign and different rules apply.
But it does look, on that photo, as though the sign is saying no parking enforcement is in operation due to Covid 19.
Comments
Sharma testing negative, certainly a few politicians including Lisa Nandy jumping to conclusions yesterday and now looking a bit silly. While it doesn't vindicate Mogg's plan for voting in person as such, this will be welcome news to him.
For the record, I have no doubt that we, the Europeans and the Chinese are all at least as bad.
One of the things I try to get across to pupils is the idea that it's OK for individual bits of science not to work; it's all contributing to the cathedral of what is and isn't known and to be a big name you have to be both clever and lucky.
For all he likes to namecheck science, Dom doesn't get that. (Partly because he's more of an Oxbridge humanities blagger than he likes to admit.) He has to have been right and everybody has to know it. Editing a blog wasn't healthy.
That insecure need to be right doesn't bode well. Thatch and Blair left office with the inner certainty that they were right, even if the fools around them didn't any more. It caused problems for their parties, but not for them personally.
Characters like Major, Brown and May seem to be a peace with their rejection.
Boris'n'Dom (because they're clearly stapled to each other now)... I'm not sure they will cope with failure well. And all political careers end in failure.
If you test 100 people and 40 are positive and you then test 300 people and 50 are positive that can be drawn on yet another graph as a "success".
We still don't know how many have or have had the virus or how many are asymptomatic. Even the number who have died is up for debate - is it 40,000, 60,000 or some other number?
Are we really getting into some of the worst-hit areas? I live in Newham, the area with the third highest death rate in the country. Officially 294 have died but the true figure is probably nearer 600. Yet there are only just over 1,000 cases so what's going on?
And imo all this mobile app stuff is a bit of a red herring. An effective system does not require that.
After 14 years, a period in Opposition won't do the Conservatives any harm either.
There's some idiot defending vandalism.
Please quote anything in that document that prohibits any requirement for labelling that identifies US origin.
Please also specify how that reconciles with Title X of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (also known as the 2002 Farm Bill), codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1638a
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1638a
I expect that Boris will reply along the lines of "Dear Keir, I agree these protests are awful. It is important that we maintain a strong alliance with the US and I will
say let's all be nicer when I talk to Trump. Blah blah blah"
The ONS excess death numbers put an upper limit on what is happening.
Most people who think they have had it - haven't
Most people who think they have it - don't
That is true for every country that has been hit by this.
Without access to his private braincare specialist, we can't tell. But I'm not sure he has the psyche to cope with people being mean to him on a regular basis for four years.
There's conflicting statements from antibody tests - I think I saw one which concluded 25% of the population of NYC had the virus.
My back-of-a-spreadsheet numbers came up at about 7% maximum so we can forget herd immunity but that doesn't mean a lot of us could be immune or asymptomatic. Again, we don't know.
We do know for people with pre-existing health conditions and especially the elderly it is a very serious illness and the long-term effects on those who are able to recover can be severe.
Always wear a mask when in a large group, even outside. Change it every four hours and safely dispose of the old one. Remember not to touch your mask while wearing it.
Stay two metres away from anyone not in your household.
Organisers should (as much as possible) provide masks, hand sanitiser, and help arrange people so they can stand/march in a formation that allows plenty of room around each person.
Shouting, singing and chanting are likely to produce droplets which can contribute to transmission. Some great alternatives are drums, rattles and other noise-making devices. If you do chant or sing, definitely do not do so without a mask on.
Don’t share signs or banners, and don’t touch things that aren’t yours. Bring your own sign, water etc. to avoid having to share with others.
Speakers need to be cautious of transmission risks. Microphones and megaphones should be wiped down well with sanitiser between speakers. Extra room should be made between speakers and the crowd – loud speaking produces droplets.
If you have any symptoms at all, do not go to a protest.
First time as each week most everybody has been out
https://twitter.com/symeonbrown/status/1268599458570395650?s=19
https://twitter.com/symeonbrown/status/1268599976629805061?s=19
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/501171-barr-denies-protesters-were-cleared-to-make-way-for-trump-church
Attorney General William Barr on Thursday said there was "no correlation" between law enforcement aggressively dispersing protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House and President Trump's walk to nearby St. John's Church shortly thereafter, a visit he defended as "entirely appropriate."...
Or is the story that Old Holborn is still going strong after about 15 years?
It's almost genius
Veep??
https://twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1268619495091789824
Bonkers?
Edited highlights here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38056197
But don't let your prejudice get in your way
Two hours of really good rain should refill three of them. The other one takes a bit longer.
“No Parking Enforcement In Operation”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8387535/So-park-Council-misses-vital-stop-no-parking-sign.html
https://youtu.be/gW2SEpWWqXM
Personally I never favoured the clapping at all - I did it tonight just to make a point and may do so again next week.
Some good ones here as well.
https://cybertext.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/a-light-hearted-look-at-how-punctuation-can-change-meaning/
I particularly enjoyed the magazine headline.
https://twitter.com/TheLancet/status/1268613313702891523
‘No Parking: Enforcement in Operation.’
I mean, I know Oxford University is a dump that has no academic rigour or pride and thinks Dom Cummings deserved a first, but it’s still not as bad as the Lancet.
That publication has blood on their hands for their rubbishness.
But it does look, on that photo, as though the sign is saying no parking enforcement is in operation due to Covid 19.