Let's just demolish the whole planet and start again on Mars. Everybody has ancestors who supported in the slave trade somehow, even if it was only tacitly allowing it to continue.
That's where imputing 21st century standards of political correctness onto historical figures gets you.
You don't see a difference between removing a statue and destroying a planet? Yeah that's smart.
It doesn't matter if past eras had different standards, we are talking about what statues should be up today not in the past. If something doesn't meet our ethics today it doesn't need to be up today.
Some tit on here last night suggested that if it was okay for Teddy Colston to remain keeping the fishes company at night, we should therefore, by all logic, nuke Bristol.
Clearly having a six-foot bronze hagiography of a slave-trafficker in a core city is pretty stupid, but arguably not quite as stupid as some of the arguments found right here on PB.
'r' looks to have increased from 0.69 to 0.75 to me, crucially below 1 through the whole of the lockdown though. Of course working from death stats I'm always about 3 weeks into the rear view mirror. So up till the first half of May we were doing a good job.
A real surprise given the hourly assurances on here that 'dickheads in London' would lead us into the apocalypse with their licentioius partying and canoodling in the capital's parks all spring.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
BLM comes into the picture only because the above scenario of cop needlessly kills civilian tends to generate substantially more black casualties.
Is that definitely true ?
I believe one has a greater probability of being arrested/ killed by law enforcement in the USA as a result of racial profiling. If that is incorrect I daresay someone will put me right.
I think that's likely true, but it's not quite what you said
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
Which is why it should be up to pubs and their customers to think for themselves what is achievable and what is not.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
It is not possible to keep people apart in a pub. The point of a pub is for people to meet up and be together.
If it is not a rule - and it isn’t - then let people come if they want, have hand sanitizers available, have rigorous hygiene, clean tables etc. Let customers decide. From what my daughter’s customers are saying, they want it reopened. Many will use it. How many is the question. But if they do come, it will not be physically possible to have any form of social distancing.
Will insurance be valid? Will a venue be legally liable if someone becomes ill?
And the answer is.......?
If 2 metres is a legally enforceable rule then many pubs, including my daughter’s will have to close.
So the distinction between whether this is a legally enforceable rule or merely guidance which can be ignored if it is not reasonable to do so for a particular venue is a critical one.
And as yet there is no answer. It is not unreasonable for people in government to be thinking about such issue and providing clarity. The government took on responsibility for the hospitality sector when it shut it down. It cannot wash its hands now just because a bit of hard thinking is needed.
I appreciate that this is very sensitive for you but just to say that a friend of mine has had several meetings with the council and police to determine what is and isn't allowed for his pub.
I'm sure your daughter has already gone down this route but they will be able to advise her on this and are the ones eventually enforcing it so will likely have some sympathy as the situation, guidelines, and the law evolve.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
Which is why it should be up to pubs and their customers to think for themselves what is achievable and what is not.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
It is not possible to keep people apart in a pub. The point of a pub is for people to meet up and be together.
If it is not a rule - and it isn’t - then let people come if they want, have hand sanitizers available, have rigorous hygiene, clean tables etc. Let customers decide. From what my daughter’s customers are saying, they AP want it reopened. Many will use it. How many is the question. But if they do come, it will not be physically possible to have any form of social distancing.
Will insurance be valid? Will a venue be legally liable if someone becomes ill?
And the answer is.......?
If 2 metres is a legally enforceable rule then many pubs, including my daughter’s will have to close.
So the distinction between whether this is a legally enforceable rule or merely guidance which can be ignored if it is not reasonable to do so for a particular venue is a critical one.
And as yet there is no answer. It is not unreasonable for people in government to be thinking about such issue and providing clarity. The government took on responsibility for the hospitality sector when it shut it down. It cannot wash its hands now just because a bit of hard thinking is needed.
As it stands I would suggest no news is good news for your daughter. The government doesn't need to say what it is legally permitted; as a guiding principle under British law if something isn't legally forbidden then it is permitted. I think so long as you're using your common sense and being sensible (Eg if possibly try to distance or shield as many tables as possible, encourage outdoor seating if possible etc) then the less government involvement the better.
If the government gets involved it will be to say that the 2 metre rule is to be legally enforced, it won't be to say that it isn't. So the less they get involved the better. The less the government says, the more your daughter can do what suits her best.
If the government starts coming out with detailed instructions your daughter is going to be obliged to follow them. If it doesn't, your daughter and her customers are free to do what they think is the right thing to do.
The government never took on responsibility for the hospitality sector, it shut it down. It did what governments do and said what isn't permitted. As the government retreats from the hospitality sector it becomes up to those who care about their businesses to do what is right for them, not what is right for Whitehall.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
mobs gonna mob
"The case was made for Colston". A voodoo poll in a local newspaper which showed 52% in favor of keeping the statue. Not exactly a democratic vote. How did the paper ensure that there were not multiple entries (on both sides)? I've been involved in local goverment , a well organised campaign can easily drown out the silent majority. Diluting the wording on second plaque by the Merchant Ventures society leads me to suspect this may have happened.
Yeah as democratic as Saddam getting 98% of vote .
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Given how awful the policing situation has become in the US - both for the police themselves and for the communities they serve - I think that this is a conversation that all good people on both sides of the fence need to have.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Has even one person here said violence against the police in the UK is acceptable?
Why are you trying to conflate matters. That's not what this is about.
Chauvin's accomplices weren't even arrested or charged and Chauvin himself was charged with a lesser offence to begin with so yes it was already in the wrong before this happened.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
Which is why it should be up to pubs and their customers to think for themselves what is achievable and what is not.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
It is not possible to keep people apart in a pub. The point of a pub is for people to meet up and be together.
If it is not a rule - and it isn’t - then let people come if they want, have hand sanitizers available, have rigorous hygiene, clean tables etc. Let customers decide. From what my daughter’s customers are saying, they want it reopened. Many will use it. How many is the question. But if they do come, it will not be physically possible to have any form of social distancing.
Will insurance be valid? Will a venue be legally liable if someone becomes ill?
And the answer is.......?
If 2 metres is a legally enforceable rule then many pubs, including my daughter’s will have to close.
So the distinction between whether this is a legally enforceable rule or merely guidance which can be ignored if it is not reasonable to do so for a particular venue is a critical one.
And as yet there is no answer. It is not unreasonable for people in government to be thinking about such issue and providing clarity. The government took on responsibility for the hospitality sector when it shut it down. It cannot wash its hands now just because a bit of hard thinking is needed.
I note that there are a lot of cafes and restaurants in my area that are still closed, or which are taking only online orders not walk-in business. Yet most shops will be allowed to reopen in a week from today. I am beginning to think that in fact many shops and restaurants will remain closed even after next week.
This will put pressure on the government which wants to restart the economy. To persuade many businesses to reopen the government may have to relax the restrictions such as social distancing, as otherwise there will be little point in them reopening.
Given how awful the policing situation has become in the US - both for the police themselves and for the communities they serve - I think that this is a conversation that all good people on both sides of the fence need to have.
That's asking for a subscription. Have you got something not behind a paywall?
Given how awful the policing situation has become in the US - both for the police themselves and for the communities they serve - I think that this is a conversation that all good people on both sides of the fence need to have.
There is an excellent Netflix series - Flint Town - which is about the police in Flint, Michigan and its various challenges including lobbying for continued funding from the council.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
Jones, James, Williams, Griffiths, Sometimes Sion, sometimes John. It's a bugger doing ancestry when one's antecedents are Welsh working class. Even before sorting out the English census takers phonetic interpretation of Welsh place names.
Sadly I think that in my 80's my rioting days are done.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
It isn't either / or, unless you haven't been on the internet for 2 weeks, it is was a major story and extremely shocking incident. Thus, it is relevant to link that the authorities have charged somebody.
Colour me stupid, but I believe you put up mugshots of a guy who murdered a cop,where both happened to be black, to imply the BLM movement is manned by hypocrites. I don't care whether it is or not, I couldn't really care less about the BLM movement. The death you highlighted was wrong, as was the death of Floyd, what more is there to say?
You also flashed up the face of some terrorist trot from Huddersfield. He's a terrorist from Huddersfield, in the same way the guy who killed Jo Cox was a terrorist from Leeds. Presumably posting that picture also proved a point. I am not sure what it was though.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
Jones, James, Williams, Griffiths, Sometimes Sion, sometimes John. It's a bugger doing ancestry when one's antecedents are Welsh working class. Even before sorting out the English census takers phonetic interpretation of Welsh place names.
Sadly I think that in my 80's my rioting days are done.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
It isn't either / or, unless you haven't been on the internet for 2 weeks, it is was a major story and extremely shocking incident. Thus, it is relevant to link that the authorities have charged somebody.
Colour me stupid, but I believe you put up mugshots of a guy who murdered a cop where both happened to be black, to imply the BLM movement is manned by hypocrites. I don't care whether it is or not, I couldn't really care less about the BLM movement. The death you highlighted was wrong, as was the death of Floyd, what more is there to say?
I wasn't implying anything at all. It was a major story. It is news that somebody has been charged. I just posted the link to the tweet about that story that appeared in my feed. And it is the only time I have mentioned it, nor have I ever implied those peacefully attending protests are hypocrites.
You appear to be trying to trying to make way more out of me posting a single tweet updating what was a significant news story in the US.
The other story, was again just breaking news. If you haven't noticed I link to lots of breaking news from loads of different sources.
If, as I've said all along, you're prepared to face the consequences of that decision.
Unlike Cummings, who denied doing anything wrong, even while admitting it on live national TV
You don't seem to understand that there are two laws. One for them and one for us.
Although it's ok for the government because Labour aren't going to hammer away at this point for the next four years. No siree.
What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
Which is why it should be up to pubs and their customers to think for themselves what is achievable and what is not.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
It is not possible to keep people apart in a pub. The point of a pub is for people to meet up and be together.
If it is not a rule - and it isn’t - then let people come if they want, have hand sanitizers available, have rigorous hygiene, clean tables etc. Let customers decide. From what my daughter’s customers are saying, they want it reopened. Many will use it. How many is the question. But if they do come, it will not be physically possible to have any form of social distancing.
Will insurance be valid? Will a venue be legally liable if someone becomes ill?
And the answer is.......?
If 2 metres is a legally enforceable rule then many pubs, including my daughter’s will have to close.
So the distinction between whether this is a legally enforceable rule or merely guidance which can be ignored if it is not reasonable to do so for a particular venue is a critical one.
And as yet there is no answer. It is not unreasonable for people in government to be thinking about such issue and providing clarity. The government took on responsibility for the hospitality sector when it shut it down. It cannot wash its hands now just because a bit of hard thinking is needed.
If I go into a pub and catch the flu off the barmaid I can't sue her or the pub, even though she (and her employer) is being irresponsible by being at work serving punters in the first place.
Ergo, I cannot see the law being changed specifically for covid.
At least, it would be absurd to do so (I know, I know...)
I sense we are on the verge of being able to conclude that slavery is and always has been an integral part of the human condition, popping up here there & everywhere for as long as homo sapiens have walked the earth, and thus any attempt to portray the involvement of Britain in it as worthy of any particular consideration - even in Britain - is to succumb to an exercise of the utmost futility.
One more heave (!) and we're there.
I love it when you stumble upon empirically-provable facts, even if only by dint of sarcasm...
I can solve the problem of pub toilets and the apparent shortage of Carling and Fosters. Simply run a pipe from the urinal drain through the cooler and onwards to the relevant tap behind the bar. Both are utter piss, may as well make it official
It's miserable when you have become utterly irrelevant.
Getting attacked by the loonies helps Starmer immensely. He has to marginalise the people who dragged the Labour party down, suspend anyone guilty of antisemitism and let the Kerry-Anne Mendozas slink back to the SWP or wherever it was they came from.
The Tories have largely learned the lesson that you steer well clear of the Tommy Robinsons of this world. Labour needs to learn the same lesson with the hard left. Starmer gives every indication that he gets it.
The Tories have some dim people on the back benches but I haven't noticed any Tommy Robinsons. Whereas Labour have quite a number of back benchers who are candidates for the left equivalent. SKS himself is clearly electable, but whether his party is so is a much trickier question.
I was discussing the political fringes not the backbenchers. On the backbenches for every lefty there is a Mark Francois.
Both parties have always had their fringes, it comes with the territory when you have a FPTP election system that requires a party to be a broad church in order to get elected. What matters is who is controlling the party, Labour had Corbyn, the Tories had IDS. Both learned their lesson eventually.
Very, very interestingly no rise in deaths, just cases. I had been expecting to start to see an effect by now.
There was a good piece of commentary from @BigRich on the Georgia experience the other day. I believe Rich is severely dyslexic so his posts aren't always spelled correctly but he often has interesting things to say.
Worth a check back – as you say a couple of things stand out in GA
1. The second peak wasn't as big as the first and soon tailed back off (shown in your chart) 2. The rise in cases wasn't matched by any rise in deaths
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
Which is why it should be up to pubs and their customers to think for themselves what is achievable and what is not.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
It is not possible to keep people apart in a pub. The point of a pub is for people to meet up and be together.
If it is not a rule - and it isn’t - then let people come if they want, have hand sanitizers available, have rigorous hygiene, clean tables etc. Let customers decide. From what my daughter’s customers are saying, they want it reopened. Many will use it. How many is the question. But if they do come, it will not be physically possible to have any form of social distancing.
Will insurance be valid? Will a venue be legally liable if someone becomes ill?
And the answer is.......?
If 2 metres is a legally enforceable rule then many pubs, including my daughter’s will have to close.
So the distinction between whether this is a legally enforceable rule or merely guidance which can be ignored if it is not reasonable to do so for a particular venue is a critical one.
And as yet there is no answer. It is not unreasonable for people in government to be thinking about such issue and providing clarity. The government took on responsibility for the hospitality sector when it shut it down. It cannot wash its hands now just because a bit of hard thinking is needed.
If I go into a pub and catch the flu off the barmaid I can't sue her or the pub, even though she (and her employer) is being irresponsible by being at work serving punters in the first place.
Ergo, I cannot see the law being changed specifically for covid.
At least, it would be absurd to do so (I know, I know...)
But if you got E. coli 0157 off the egg salad, you could sue, could you not? [Edit: I am not thinking of any specific pub, especially as the problem could lie upstrea, e.g. in the lettuce grower.]
IANAL so can't work out what hte difference is, esp. as you could catch covid off the beer glasses for instance.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Paragraph 2. You are 100% correct.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
Which is why it should be up to pubs and their customers to think for themselves what is achievable and what is not.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
It is not possible to keep people apart in a pub. The point of a pub is for people to meet up and be together.
If it is not a rule - and it isn’t - then let people come if they want, have hand sanitizers available, have rigorous hygiene, clean tables etc. Let customers decide. From what my daughter’s customers are saying, they want it reopened. Many will use it. How many is the question. But if they do come, it will not be physically possible to have any form of social distancing.
Will insurance be valid? Will a venue be legally liable if someone becomes ill?
And the answer is.......?
If 2 metres is a legally enforceable rule then many pubs, including my daughter’s will have to close.
So the distinction between whether this is a legally enforceable rule or merely guidance which can be ignored if it is not reasonable to do so for a particular venue is a critical one.
And as yet there is no answer. It is not unreasonable for people in government to be thinking about such issue and providing clarity. The government took on responsibility for the hospitality sector when it shut it down. It cannot wash its hands now just because a bit of hard thinking is needed.
If I go into a pub and catch the flu off the barmaid I can't sue her or the pub, even though she (and her employer) is being irresponsible by being at work serving punters in the first place.
Ergo, I cannot see the law being changed specifically for covid.
At least, it would be absurd to do so (I know, I know...)
But if you got E. coli 0157 off the egg salad, you could sue, could you not? [Edit: I am not thinking of any specific pub, especially as the problem could lie upstrea, e.g. in the lettuce grower.]
IANAL so can't work out what hte difference is, esp. as you could catch covid off the beer glasses for instance.
Fair point – I assume viral infections must have a different legal status to bacterial food poisoning, otherwise schools and office blocks would be litigious nightmares!
God, she stuffed your lot up good and proper, didn't she? Decades and decades later and the left are still stewing in impotent rage about the Iron Lady
Then Blair "stuffed your lot up good and proper" in 3 successive elections, that's how it goes.
Electorally, but not politically. Taxes were never lower nor capitalism ever more thriving than under good old Tone. Thatcher and Major broke Old Labour so hard that most of the Tory programme remained or was expanded even when the Tories themselves were out of power. They actually did 'win the argument' - that's what the Corbynites were so angry about.
Cameron had to become a Blair mini-me in order for the Tories to get back into power.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
Jones, James, Williams, Griffiths, Sometimes Sion, sometimes John. It's a bugger doing ancestry when one's antecedents are Welsh working class. Even before sorting out the English census takers phonetic interpretation of Welsh place names.
Sadly I think that in my 80's my rioting days are done.
Never too old to start a new hobby!
I have actually been doing my Family History. So far no-one 'interesting' apart possibly from a thrice married churchwarden.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
Jones, James, Williams, Griffiths, Sometimes Sion, sometimes John. It's a bugger doing ancestry when one's antecedents are Welsh working class. Even before sorting out the English census takers phonetic interpretation of Welsh place names.
Sadly I think that in my 80's my rioting days are done.
Never too old to start a new hobby!
I have actually been doing my Family History. So far no-one 'interesting' apart possibly from a thrice married churchwarden.
That would have made the front page of The Western Mail back in the day! Especially if all three marriages were concurrent.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
Perhaps this theory about a significant proportion of the population having natural immunity has legs, and that herd immunity doesn't need 60%+ to catch it, 20-25% might be enough.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Paragraph 2. You are 100% correct.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
I absolutely agree Floyd deserved his day in court, though whether he would have got that is another matter.
I don;t know much about the US court system, but from what I have seen its there, and not on the streets, where the real racial injustice may be.
The plea bargain/ public defender system militates very strongly against the impoverished defendent in the American system, and therefore against the black person, in real terms.
I wonder how many innocent black people take the deal rather than fight their case with a weak attorney, risking a draconian punishment.
Oh dear, Murray sounds like a hectoring vicar on that. Also some straw men floating about there. Have a significant number of people really been lined up and smeared as racists and apologists for murder simply because they haven't voiced an opinion on the George Floyd murder? If so, who?
Will there be any protests about this young black man losing his life?
Was one of the authorities who is meant to keep the public safe abusing his position of authority and responsible for killing him instead?
I have just transferred you back into the 'sensible PB Tory ' column.
So anytime in the world when a white police officer kills a black man whilst arresting him then the UK should have black lives matter protests. But when a black man kills another black man in the UK (which is an almost daily occurence) everyone should just shrug? And thats sensible?
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
Perhaps this theory about a significant proportion of the population having natural immunity has legs, and that herd immunity doesn't need 60%+ to catch it, 20-25% might be enough.
There's something going on.
Certainly the proportion of the population that
a) is under 30 b) is 31-60 but absent of any pre-existing condition c) has recovered and developed immunity d) has Fristonite 'dark matter'*
Runs into the tens of millions.
* if this exists (even if it doesn't groups a, b and c combined still command a large proportion of the population).
Did you see the NHS England numbers posted earlier showing deaths with and without pre-existing conditions? They are quite something...
If, as I've said all along, you're prepared to face the consequences of that decision.
Unlike Cummings, who denied doing anything wrong, even while admitting it on live national TV
You don't seem to understand that there are two laws. One for them and one for us.
Although it's ok for the government because Labour aren't going to hammer away at this point for the next four years. No siree.
What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on.
Not great at this whole politics thing, are you.
Not great at answering simple questions, are you?
I think the simplicity of the question reflects the simplicity of the person who posed it.
In fact it is so simple that I am not going to answer but rather, repeat it here because for anyone apart from dolts, the answer is blindingly obvious.
Here it is:
"What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on."
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
Perhaps this theory about a significant proportion of the population having natural immunity has legs, and that herd immunity doesn't need 60%+ to catch it, 20-25% might be enough.
German\Norwegian study suggesting Blood group may be a major factor. Bad news if you are A type ( esp A+ ), good news for O Types
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Paragraph 2. You are 100% correct.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
I absolutely agree Floyd deserved his day in court, though whether he would have got that is another matter.
I don;t know much about the US court system, but from what I have seen its there, and not on the streets, where the real racial injustice may be.
The plea bargain/ public defender system militates very strongly against the impoverished defendent in the American system, and therefore against the black person, in real terms.
I wonder how many innocent black people take the deal rather than fight their case with a weak attorney, risking a draconian punishment.
I believe in US talking single digit percent of cases actually go to trial, the rest are settled by plea bargain.
Will there be any protests about this young black man losing his life?
Was one of the authorities who is meant to keep the public safe abusing his position of authority and responsible for killing him instead?
I have just transferred you back into the 'sensible PB Tory ' column.
So anytime in the world when a white police officer kills a black man whilst arresting him then the UK should have black lives matter protests. But when a black man kills another black man in the UK (which is an almost daily occurence) everyone should just shrug? And thats sensible?
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Paragraph 2. You are 100% correct.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
I absolutely agree Floyd deserved his day in court, though whether he would have got that is another matter.
I don;t know much about the US court system, but from what I have seen its there, and not on the streets, where the real racial injustice may be.
The plea bargain/ public defender system militates very strongly against the impoverished defendent in the American system, and therefore against the black person, in real terms.
I wonder how many innocent black people take the deal rather than fight their case with a weak attorney, risking a draconian punishment.
I suspect you are right and presumably opposing such injustice is what cooler BLM heads might advocate. But my knowledge of the US legal system begins and ends with the TV show Law and Order: Criminal Intent.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
Jones, James, Williams, Griffiths, Sometimes Sion, sometimes John. It's a bugger doing ancestry when one's antecedents are Welsh working class. Even before sorting out the English census takers phonetic interpretation of Welsh place names.
Sadly I think that in my 80's my rioting days are done.
Never too old to start a new hobby!
I have actually been doing my Family History. So far no-one 'interesting' apart possibly from a thrice married churchwarden.
That would have made the front page of The Western Mail back in the day! Especially if all three marriages were concurrent.
Yes; definitely. Only one at a time, though. Only had children with one of them though, which has made life that bit easier. However, he seems to have lost contact with his children. Mind, he was Church. And they seem to have been Chapel.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
Perhaps this theory about a significant proportion of the population having natural immunity has legs, and that herd immunity doesn't need 60%+ to catch it, 20-25% might be enough.
There's something going on.
Certainly the proportion of the population that
a) is under 30 b) is 31-60 but absent of any pre-existing condition c) has recovered and developed immunity d) has Fristonite 'dark matter'*
Runs into the tens of millions.
* if this exists (even if it doesn't groups a, b and c combined still command a large proportion of the population).
Did you see the NHS England numbers posted earlier showing deaths with and without pre-existing conditions? They are quite something...
No, didn't see. Linky?
It is interesting isnt it, London, NY etc, hit ~20% of people having had it and it rapidly declines.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Paragraph 2. You are 100% correct.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
I absolutely agree Floyd deserved his day in court, though whether he would have got that is another matter.
I don;t know much about the US court system, but from what I have seen its there, and not on the streets, where the real racial injustice may be.
The plea bargain/ public defender system militates very strongly against the impoverished defendent in the American system, and therefore against the black person, in real terms.
I wonder how many innocent black people take the deal rather than fight their case with a weak attorney, risking a draconian punishment.
I believe in US talking single digit percent of cases actually go to trial, the rest are settled by plea bargain.
Indeed. Its little wonder the black community hate the police so much when arrest and charge means a de facto prison sentence in almost every case.
If, as I've said all along, you're prepared to face the consequences of that decision.
Unlike Cummings, who denied doing anything wrong, even while admitting it on live national TV
You don't seem to understand that there are two laws. One for them and one for us.
Although it's ok for the government because Labour aren't going to hammer away at this point for the next four years. No siree.
What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on.
Not great at this whole politics thing, are you.
Not great at answering simple questions, are you?
I think the simplicity of the question reflects the simplicity of the person who posed it.
In fact it is so simple that I am not going to answer but rather, repeat it here because for anyone apart from dolts, the answer is blindingly obvious.
Here it is:
"What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on."
By all means keep proving your inability to answer the question - Labour's obvious hypocrisy has destroyed that particular attack line and you don't like it, but that's life.
Very, very interestingly no rise in deaths, just cases. I had been expecting to start to see an effect by now.
There was a good piece of commentary from @BigRich on the Georgia experience the other day. I believe Rich is severely dyslexic so his posts aren't always spelled correctly but he often has interesting things to say.
Worth a check back – as you say a couple of things stand out in GA
1. The second peak wasn't as big as the first and soon tailed back off (shown in your chart) 2. The rise in cases wasn't matched by any rise in deaths
It has barely trailed off - Georgia has a big data reporting lag. Everything shaded (the last 14 days) should be treated as the most provisional of provisional figures and will be revised heavily upwards.
The 2nd 'peak' reached reached 703 cases on the 7 day moving average on the 19th of May, it is already 656 on the 1st of June and that figure will only increase over the next week.
The interesting thing is point 2, the no rise in deaths.
If, as I've said all along, you're prepared to face the consequences of that decision.
Unlike Cummings, who denied doing anything wrong, even while admitting it on live national TV
You don't seem to understand that there are two laws. One for them and one for us.
Although it's ok for the government because Labour aren't going to hammer away at this point for the next four years. No siree.
What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on.
Not great at this whole politics thing, are you.
Not great at answering simple questions, are you?
I think the simplicity of the question reflects the simplicity of the person who posed it.
In fact it is so simple that I am not going to answer but rather, repeat it here because for anyone apart from dolts, the answer is blindingly obvious.
Here it is:
"What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on."
By all means keep proving your inability to answer the question - Labour's obvious hypocrisy has destroyed that particular attack line and you don't like it, but that's life.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
Perhaps this theory about a significant proportion of the population having natural immunity has legs, and that herd immunity doesn't need 60%+ to catch it, 20-25% might be enough.
There's something going on.
Certainly the proportion of the population that
a) is under 30 b) is 31-60 but absent of any pre-existing condition c) has recovered and developed immunity d) has Fristonite 'dark matter'*
Runs into the tens of millions.
* if this exists (even if it doesn't groups a, b and c combined still command a large proportion of the population).
Did you see the NHS England numbers posted earlier showing deaths with and without pre-existing conditions? They are quite something...
No, didn't see. Linky?
It is interesting isnt it, London, NY etc, hit ~20% of people having had it and it rapidly declines.
Will there be any protests about this young black man losing his life?
Was one of the authorities who is meant to keep the public safe abusing his position of authority and responsible for killing him instead?
I have just transferred you back into the 'sensible PB Tory ' column.
So anytime in the world when a white police officer kills a black man whilst arresting him then the UK should have black lives matter protests. But when a black man kills another black man in the UK (which is an almost daily occurence) everyone should just shrug? And thats sensible?
I never suggested that, and far from speaking on behalf of Mr Thompson, he didn't say that either.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
If you're trying to put out a fire you don't hubristically claim "Mission Accomplished" and walk away once you're getting it under control. You continue taking it seriously and extinguishing it.
Hancock might be quietly happy that the virus is coming under control, but its far too premature to be shouting from the rooftops.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Paragraph 2. You are 100% correct.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
I absolutely agree Floyd deserved his day in court, though whether he would have got that is another matter.
I don;t know much about the US court system, but from what I have seen its there, and not on the streets, where the real racial injustice may be.
The plea bargain/ public defender system militates very strongly against the impoverished defendent in the American system, and therefore against the black person, in real terms.
I wonder how many innocent black people take the deal rather than fight their case with a weak attorney, risking a draconian punishment.
I believe in US talking single digit percent of cases actually go to trial, the rest are settled by plea bargain.
Indeed. Its little wonder the black community hate the police so much when arrest and charge means a de facto prison sentence in almost every case.
The whole game appears to become ramping up as severe and many charges that they can think of with knowledge they will never have to defend those positions in court, rather just the opening move in a lengthy negotiation...and then you need a good lawyer to do the negotiation on your side.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
Perhaps this theory about a significant proportion of the population having natural immunity has legs, and that herd immunity doesn't need 60%+ to catch it, 20-25% might be enough.
There's something going on.
Certainly the proportion of the population that
a) is under 30 b) is 31-60 but absent of any pre-existing condition c) has recovered and developed immunity d) has Fristonite 'dark matter'*
Runs into the tens of millions.
* if this exists (even if it doesn't groups a, b and c combined still command a large proportion of the population).
Did you see the NHS England numbers posted earlier showing deaths with and without pre-existing conditions? They are quite something...
No, didn't see. Linky?
It is interesting isnt it, London, NY etc, hit ~20% of people having had it and it rapidly declines.
There's been a certain amount of speculation about the 20% figure from other instances as well - notably the Diamond Princess cruise ship - but nothing has been proven, obviously.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
Jones, James, Williams, Griffiths, Sometimes Sion, sometimes John. It's a bugger doing ancestry when one's antecedents are Welsh working class. Even before sorting out the English census takers phonetic interpretation of Welsh place names.
Sadly I think that in my 80's my rioting days are done.
Never too old to start a new hobby!
I have actually been doing my Family History. So far no-one 'interesting' apart possibly from a thrice married churchwarden.
That would have made the front page of The Western Mail back in the day! Especially if all three marriages were concurrent.
Yes; definitely. Only one at a time, though. Only had children with one of them though, which has made life that bit easier. However, he seems to have lost contact with his children. Mind, he was Church. And they seem to have been Chapel.
In Wales Chapel was for the godfearing, Church was for agnostics!
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Paragraph 2. You are 100% correct.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
I absolutely agree Floyd deserved his day in court, though whether he would have got that is another matter.
I don;t know much about the US court system, but from what I have seen its there, and not on the streets, where the real racial injustice may be.
The plea bargain/ public defender system militates very strongly against the impoverished defendent in the American system, and therefore against the black person, in real terms.
I wonder how many innocent black people take the deal rather than fight their case with a weak attorney, risking a draconian punishment.
I believe in US talking single digit percent of cases actually go to trial, the rest are settled by plea bargain.
Indeed. Its little wonder the black community hate the police so much when arrest and charge means a de facto prison sentence in almost every case.
Surely the more serious the charge, the smaller percentage plea bargained. Is there data on that?
@Anabobazina Having had a coronavirus common cold in the last few years may be enough to grant some immunity. Anyway even as someone who thinks we should move cautiously I think pubs should have been allowed to open the beer garden today.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
Perhaps. But when you see that daily deaths have fallen so sharply and consistently (e.g. NHS England deaths have fallen by 90% from the peak) - and given that the government are trying to kick-start the economy - you`d think that they would be keen to trumpet these stats as a vindication of their policies.
Maybe the answer is more obvious - the ministers don`t understand the stats themselves because they are a bit dim and/or are poorly communicating. It all seems a bit loose and shambolic to me. Some of their performances, including the PM`s have been abysmal.
It is really saying something that Shapps has been one of the best.
@Anabobazina Having had a coronavirus common cold in the last few years may be enough to grant some immunity. Anyway even as someone who thinks we should move cautiously I think pubs should have been allowed to open the beer garden today.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
Paragraph 2 part 1 is quite probably factually correct. I don't see how that makes Derek Chauvin asphyxiating George Floyd OK.
Nobody is claiming it does. And I think everybody hopes Chauvin and any others will receive the very heavy punishment it probably deserves.
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
Paragraph 2. You are 100% correct.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
I absolutely agree Floyd deserved his day in court, though whether he would have got that is another matter.
I don;t know much about the US court system, but from what I have seen its there, and not on the streets, where the real racial injustice may be.
The plea bargain/ public defender system militates very strongly against the impoverished defendent in the American system, and therefore against the black person, in real terms.
I wonder how many innocent black people take the deal rather than fight their case with a weak attorney, risking a draconian punishment.
I believe in US talking single digit percent of cases actually go to trial, the rest are settled by plea bargain.
Indeed. Its little wonder the black community hate the police so much when arrest and charge means a de facto prison sentence in almost every case.
Surely the more serious the charge, the smaller percentage plea bargained. Is there data on that?
So the DA says "Plead guilty and we will ask for 10, parole in 5 years. Contest it and we are going for 35 to life no parole."
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
Perhaps. But when you see that daily deaths have fallen so sharply and consistently (e.g. NHS England deaths have fallen by 90% from the peak) - and given that the government are trying to kick-start the economy - you`d think that they would be keen to trumpet these stats as a vindication of their policies.
Maybe the answer is more obvous - the ministers don`t understand the stats themselves because they are a bit dim and/or are poorly communicating. It all seems a bit loose and shambolic to me. Some of theirperformances, inclusding the PMs have been abysmal.
It is really saying something that Shapps has been one of the best.
Weekend effect is a good reason not to trumpet these figures - indeed Ms Sturgeon made a similar caveat when announcing zero deaths yesterday. Mr Hancock would look a right, er, idiot if he went loud today and it doubled tomorrow.
Edit: that is assuming that Mr Hancock et al are rational actors, understand stats etc.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
Perhaps. But when you see that daily deaths have fallen so sharply and consistently (e.g. NHS England deaths have fallen by 90% from the peak) - and given that the government are trying to kick-start the economy - you`d think that they would be keen to trumpet these stats as a vindication of their policies.
Maybe the answer is more obvious - the ministers don`t understand the stats themselves because they are a bit dim and/or are poorly communicating. It all seems a bit loose and shambolic to me. Some of their performances, including the PM`s have been abysmal.
It is really saying something that Shapps has been one of the best.
They're not trying to restart the economy yet, they're trying to restart it in a few weeks time for many things. Plus they want people to continue to distance.
If there's shouting from the rooftops now we'll likely just see even more crowded beaches (let alone what's going on in the streets) and risk a second wave before people can get back to normal. Why do that?
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
Perhaps. But when you see that daily deaths have fallen so sharply and consistently (e.g. NHS England deaths have fallen by 90% from the peak) - and given that the government are trying to kick-start the economy - you`d think that they would be keen to trumpet these stats as a vindication of their policies.
Maybe the answer is more obvous - the ministers don`t understand the stats themselves because they are a bit dim and/or are poorly communicating. It all seems a bit loose and shambolic to me. Some of theirperformances, inclusding the PMs have been abysmal.
It is really saying something that Shapps has been one of the best.
Weekend effect is a good reason not to trumpet these figures - indeed Ms Sturgeon made a similar caveat when announcing zero deaths yesterday. Mr Hancock would look a right, er, idiot if he went loud today and it doubled tomorrow.
No - see below. I`m not just referring to the last two days.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
Perhaps. But when you see that daily deaths have fallen so sharply and consistently (e.g. NHS England deaths have fallen by 90% from the peak) - and given that the government are trying to kick-start the economy - you`d think that they would be keen to trumpet these stats as a vindication of their policies.
Maybe the answer is more obvous - the ministers don`t understand the stats themselves because they are a bit dim and/or are poorly communicating. It all seems a bit loose and shambolic to me. Some of theirperformances, inclusding the PMs have been abysmal.
It is really saying something that Shapps has been one of the best.
Weekend effect is a good reason not to trumpet these figures - indeed Ms Sturgeon made a similar caveat when announcing zero deaths yesterday. Mr Hancock would look a right, er, idiot if he went loud today and it doubled tomorrow.
No - see below. I`m not just referring to the last two days.
@Anabobazina Having had a coronavirus common cold in the last few years may be enough to grant some immunity. Anyway even as someone who thinks we should move cautiously I think pubs should have been allowed to open the beer garden today.
God, she stuffed your lot up good and proper, didn't she? Decades and decades later and the left are still stewing in impotent rage about the Iron Lady
Then Blair "stuffed your lot up good and proper" in 3 successive elections, that's how it goes.
Electorally, but not politically. Taxes were never lower nor capitalism ever more thriving than under good old Tone. Thatcher and Major broke Old Labour so hard that most of the Tory programme remained or was expanded even when the Tories themselves were out of power. They actually did 'win the argument' - that's what the Corbynites were so angry about.
Cameron had to become a Blair mini-me in order for the Tories to get back into power.
God, she stuffed your lot up good and proper, didn't she? Decades and decades later and the left are still stewing in impotent rage about the Iron Lady
Then Blair "stuffed your lot up good and proper" in 3 successive elections, that's how it goes.
Electorally, but not politically. Taxes were never lower nor capitalism ever more thriving than under good old Tone. Thatcher and Major broke Old Labour so hard that most of the Tory programme remained or was expanded even when the Tories themselves were out of power. They actually did 'win the argument' - that's what the Corbynites were so angry about.
Desperate stuff. You'll be telling us next that 1997 Tories supported Labour's minimum wage, a windfall tax on utilities, huge planned increases in public spending on education and health, FOI, and so on.
In reality, back in 1997 Tories like you, just as they do now, argued that the country would be going to hell in a handcart if Labour were elected to implement their crazy spending plans and liberal social policies. Plus ca change.
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
Perhaps this theory about a significant proportion of the population having natural immunity has legs, and that herd immunity doesn't need 60%+ to catch it, 20-25% might be enough.
Weekend reporting lag makes all of the above interesting - but not a sign of anything.
7 day averages are a thing for this. For scientific, proven, reasons.
I sense we are on the verge of being able to conclude that slavery is and always has been an integral part of the human condition, popping up here there & everywhere for as long as homo sapiens have walked the earth, and thus any attempt to portray the involvement of Britain in it as worthy of any particular consideration - even in Britain - is to succumb to an exercise of the utmost futility.
One more heave (!) and we're there.
We’re where? And what does that “one more heave” look like?
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
My understanding is that the UK total for today is 62 - 59 in England, 3 in Wales, and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland for the second day running.
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
55 I think, but yes, none in London nor any in Scotland or NI for the second day running, as you say.
I ask again - why isn`t the government shouting this from the rooftops? Instead we get the news today of travel quarantines. Hancock was crap on Sophie Ridge yesterday.
Hancock yesterday was stupidly downbeat given the numbers. The only rational explanation is that if they shout too loudly they fear people will abandon the lockdown.
Perhaps. But when you see that daily deaths have fallen so sharply and consistently (e.g. NHS England deaths have fallen by 90% from the peak) - and given that the government are trying to kick-start the economy - you`d think that they would be keen to trumpet these stats as a vindication of their policies.
Maybe the answer is more obvous - the ministers don`t understand the stats themselves because they are a bit dim and/or are poorly communicating. It all seems a bit loose and shambolic to me. Some of theirperformances, inclusding the PMs have been abysmal.
It is really saying something that Shapps has been one of the best.
Weekend effect is a good reason not to trumpet these figures - indeed Ms Sturgeon made a similar caveat when announcing zero deaths yesterday. Mr Hancock would look a right, er, idiot if he went loud today and it doubled tomorrow.
Edit: that is assuming that Mr Hancock et al are rational actors, understand stats etc.
Comments
Clearly having a six-foot bronze hagiography of a slave-trafficker in a core city is pretty stupid, but arguably not quite as stupid as some of the arguments found right here on PB.
A real surprise given the hourly assurances on here that 'dickheads in London' would lead us into the apocalypse with their licentioius partying and canoodling in the capital's parks all spring.
Very, very interestingly no rise in deaths, just cases. I had been expecting to start to see an effect by now.
https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1269991149680328706?s=20
Notable in the English figures are zero new deaths reported in London, and only 2 in the South-West, one of which happened a month ago. 41 deaths - two-thirds of today's total - were reported from the Midlands and the North.
I'm sure your daughter has already gone down this route but they will be able to advise her on this and are the ones eventually enforcing it so will likely have some sympathy as the situation, guidelines, and the law evolve.
If the government gets involved it will be to say that the 2 metre rule is to be legally enforced, it won't be to say that it isn't. So the less they get involved the better. The less the government says, the more your daughter can do what suits her best.
If the government starts coming out with detailed instructions your daughter is going to be obliged to follow them. If it doesn't, your daughter and her customers are free to do what they think is the right thing to do.
The government never took on responsibility for the hospitality sector, it shut it down. It did what governments do and said what isn't permitted. As the government retreats from the hospitality sector it becomes up to those who care about their businesses to do what is right for them, not what is right for Whitehall.
How did the paper ensure that there were not multiple entries (on both sides)?
I've been involved in local goverment , a well organised campaign can easily drown out the silent majority. Diluting the wording on second plaque by the Merchant Ventures society leads me to suspect this may have happened.
Yeah as democratic as Saddam getting 98% of vote .
But there's no need for policemen in Britain to get injured for that to happen. It is going to happen anyway.
If Chauvin walked or got a light sentence because of a white jury or biased judge or if evidence got 'lost' or policemen perjured themselves to try to save him, fine. I could see why America's cities would be on fire. And Britain's.
But in all probability that ain't gonna happen. Because actually Floyd probably is going to get the justice he deserves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/07/defund-police-heres-what-that-really-means/
Given how awful the policing situation has become in the US - both for the police themselves and for the communities they serve - I think that this is a conversation that all good people on both sides of the fence need to have.
I agree in so far as when the crowd du jour decides, nobody else in society gets a say.
Why are you trying to conflate matters. That's not what this is about.
Chauvin's accomplices weren't even arrested or charged and Chauvin himself was charged with a lesser offence to begin with so yes it was already in the wrong before this happened.
Ahem.
This will put pressure on the government which wants to restart the economy. To persuade many businesses to reopen the government may have to relax the restrictions such as social distancing, as otherwise there will be little point in them reopening.
Obviously...
2 men shot dead and others stabbed in horrific weekend of violence in capital
https://www.mylondon.news/news/north-london-news/london-crime-2-men-shot-18380603
Sadly I think that in my 80's my rioting days are done.
You also flashed up the face of some terrorist trot from Huddersfield. He's a terrorist from Huddersfield, in the same way the guy who killed Jo Cox was a terrorist from Leeds. Presumably posting that picture also proved a point. I am not sure what it was though.
But that does check out – more than 90% of all Covid-19 deaths occur in people with pre-existing conditions.
I'm staggered by that figure.
The chances of an under 50 with no pre-existing condition coming a cropper are insanely low.
Bit in this document on risk.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/deaths-covid-19
https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1269980189460750336?s=20
https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1269980512254337027?s=20
You appear to be trying to trying to make way more out of me posting a single tweet updating what was a significant news story in the US.
The other story, was again just breaking news. If you haven't noticed I link to lots of breaking news from loads of different sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5frKAyhG3Rs
Ergo, I cannot see the law being changed specifically for covid.
At least, it would be absurd to do so (I know, I know...)
Both parties have always had their fringes, it comes with the territory when you have a FPTP election system that requires a party to be a broad church in order to get elected. What matters is who is controlling the party, Labour had Corbyn, the Tories had IDS. Both learned their lesson eventually.
Worth a check back – as you say a couple of things stand out in GA
1. The second peak wasn't as big as the first and soon tailed back off (shown in your chart)
2. The rise in cases wasn't matched by any rise in deaths
IANAL so can't work out what hte difference is, esp. as you could catch covid off the beer glasses for instance.
Final paragraph. A bit late for Mr Floyd. If he was a bad guy, throw him in jail by all means. But even if he was a bad guy, he deserved due process rather than an execution by accident or design on a kerbside in Minneapolis.
I don;t know much about the US court system, but from what I have seen its there, and not on the streets, where the real racial injustice may be.
The plea bargain/ public defender system militates very strongly against the impoverished defendent in the American system, and therefore against the black person, in real terms.
I wonder how many innocent black people take the deal rather than fight their case with a weak attorney, risking a draconian punishment.
Certainly the proportion of the population that
a) is under 30
b) is 31-60 but absent of any pre-existing condition
c) has recovered and developed immunity
d) has Fristonite 'dark matter'*
Runs into the tens of millions.
* if this exists (even if it doesn't groups a, b and c combined still command a large proportion of the population).
Did you see the NHS England numbers posted earlier showing deaths with and without pre-existing conditions? They are quite something...
In fact it is so simple that I am not going to answer but rather, repeat it here because for anyone apart from dolts, the answer is blindingly obvious.
Here it is:
"What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on."
LOL - @BluestBlue at his best.
Bad news if you are A type ( esp A+ ), good news for O Types
https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article209150033/Studie-Blutgruppe-beeinflusst-Schwere-des-Covid-19-Verlaufs.html
Mind, he was Church. And they seem to have been Chapel.
It is interesting isnt it, London, NY etc, hit ~20% of people having had it and it rapidly declines.
The 2nd 'peak' reached reached 703 cases on the 7 day moving average on the 19th of May, it is already 656 on the 1st of June and that figure will only increase over the next week.
The interesting thing is point 2, the no rise in deaths.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/deaths-covid-19
Hancock might be quietly happy that the virus is coming under control, but its far too premature to be shouting from the rooftops.
Anyway even as someone who thinks we should move cautiously I think pubs should have been allowed to open the beer garden today.
Maybe the answer is more obvious - the ministers don`t understand the stats themselves because they are a bit dim and/or are poorly communicating. It all seems a bit loose and shambolic to me. Some of their performances, including the PM`s have been abysmal.
It is really saying something that Shapps has been one of the best.
No reason the Derby shouldn't be at Goodison. Hopefully that's where the title will be won.
What would you do?
Edit: that is assuming that Mr Hancock et al are rational actors, understand stats etc.
If there's shouting from the rooftops now we'll likely just see even more crowded beaches (let alone what's going on in the streets) and risk a second wave before people can get back to normal. Why do that?
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1269983148626063360/photo/1
7 day averages are a thing for this. For scientific, proven, reasons.
And what will it achieve?